Some of the KDE fans among us though seem to be starting to dislike GNOME more and more.
strange, I have seen some GNOME-users start to dislike KDE more and more. Hell, I have seen that trend is some of the GNOME-developers as well (*cough*Luis Villa*cough*)
For the subject at hand, they are. We are talking about the strength and capabilities of the military, period. The 300+ million men in China are next to irrelevant if there was to be a armed conflict involving China. Of course it has long-term benefits for the military and the country as a whole. But to me it seems that some people are reading the World Factbook and start to think "OMG! China has over 300 million soldiers!".
"manpower" means jack shit. How does China get those 342 million men in to Australia? On boats made of bamboo? What kind of weapons would they have? Sticks and spears? Yes, they could send wave after wave of men at their enemies in the battlefield. But what good does it do if they are wiped out before they can even see their foe? What good does it do if they starve to death because they have no means to supply them?
Besides, your figures merely show the number of men that are of right age to serve in the military. If they all went to war right now, they would be nothing more than an untrained mob with few weapons. What you need to look at is the actual number of trained soldiers in each countrys military. For Chinas Peoples Liberation Army that number is 2.25 million. A huge number, true. But there's more to the effectiveness of the military than raw manpower. just ebout everyone agrees that USA has the strongest military at the moment. How can that be since the Chinese clearly outman them? It's because the Chinese do not outgun them.
According to the World Factbook, Finland has over 1 million men available for military service. And that number sounds right. But still the actual number of soldiers in wartime army is around 250.000 (IIRC). So the "manpower"-figures that the World Factbook quotes are next to meaningless.
"One advantage of having flown the Eurofighter, General Jumper said, is that it allows him to get first-hand knowledge of technology U.S. allies use and to see how America's handiwork stacks up. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology."
So he clearly disputes your claim of "they are not neck and neck". What you are doing is that you are looking at some paper-specs. He has actually flown both. Have you flown either of them? No? Then what makes you the expert on this field?
Here is the quote by the only pilot who has flown both.
I don't see any indication of "F-22 is better than Typhoon" in that quite. I see him saying that they are two different planes with different design-goals, so comparing them is difficult.
In March 2003, during a combat training flight, 1 F-22A went against 5 F-15C Eagles. During the exercise, the F-22A shot down all F-15's without being damaged
Two F-15's tried to ambush Typhoon during joint exercises. The Typhoon outmanouvered them both and shot them down. Of course, it wasn't 5:1 engagement, but it was an engagement where the F-15's started from behind the Typhoon, and the Typhoon-pilot didn't even know that they were planning to ambush him.
In addition, the F-22 has a superior radar to the Typhoon in the Raytheon and Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
Of course you can find individual mareas where F-22 is better than the Typhoon, and vice versa. Typhoon has superior man-machine interface and the AA-missile being developed for it is clearly superior (faster, longer range, more agile) to the AMRAAM that is used in the F-22.
What is this, a pissing-match? I quoted a pilot that has flown both. And he said that they are "neck and neck" (of course there are differences, since they have different design-goals). Then some Random slashdotter pulls some specs and claims "no, he's wrong. Just look at the specs!". While F-22 is usually placed before the Typhoon in AA-effectiveness, it should also be noted that F-22 costs over twice as much as the Typhoon does (F-22: $152M, Typhoon: $74M)
I think few people doubt the quality and capability of US avionics, it is just that those systems almost never leave the US military.
I don't think people are questioning the quality of US Engineering overall. What people are questioning is the claim that US Tech is superior, bar none. I think that USA just has shinier PowerPoint-presentations that some of the other countries do;).
Your way of thinking is naive way of thinking. Remember the "peace in our lifetime"-bullshit? No-one thought back then that war was imminent. Had you asked Finns in 1938 or early 1939 that "would you believe that USSR is going to attack Finland?", the typical answer would have been "No fucking way!". And look what happened. Hell, before the war people and politicians believed that there is no way there could be a war, and military received very little funding since it was thought to be useless. And when the war did start, they didn't even have uniforms for everyone, and air-force consisted of handful of obsolete planes, and artillery was basically out of ammo right from the start. And still, we have people saying "There is no way there's going to be a war, so why spend money on preparing for one?", when history clearly shows that such thinking is very short-sighted.
And besides: building a military takes a long time. You can't simply not spend any money or resources on it, and then re-build it from scratch in a short period of time. What if Australia dismantled their military, and few years from now they noticed that "Shit, China/Indonesia is about to invade us in just few months time!". They couldn't build an effective defence against it. They might draft handful of people, give them some training and assault-rifles and that's it. No advanced weapons-systems, no airforce, no effective navy, and no effective defence.
A wise man once said: "There will always be an army inside the country. Either your own, or someone elses."
The real selling point to countries like Australia is that they get more advanced versions of the software, electronics, and sensors -- the parts responsible for lethality and survivability to a very large extent -- which are one of the real strengths of US military R&D.
When Finland bought F/A-18's from USA they were the top-of-the-line planes back then (and they are very, very good even today). Now, fighter-aircraft have a system which transmits data between the plane and the ground and integrates the plane in to the greater whole, and the Hornet is no exception. One of the first things we did was to rip the US-designed system out, and replaced it with a Finnish design, for the sole reason that the US system was just plain inferior.
The US has no competitor at the very high-end of the quality/effectiveness market
Europe and their Eurofighter Typhoon? Like it or not, that is a VERY capable aircraft. F-22 might be a bit better, but F-22 also costs a lot more. And according to the only pilot that has actually flown both, they are neck and neck. He does say that F-22 has supercruise, but The Typhoon has it as well.
The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars.
Well, not exactly. As it happens, there just hasn't been a war as large-scale as some of the past wars have been. Lots of people died in WW1 and WW2. WW2 killed more than WW1, partly due to more advanced methods of killing. But since WW2 we have just had relatively minor wars. Iraq War is pretty small potatoes, and even it resulted in something like 100.000 deaths. Vietnam (a lot smaller than either World Wars) caused over 2 million deaths. Korean Wars caused millions of casualties as well, but I don't know the number of deaths. So the amount of casualties have been relatively high, even though the wars have been very limited in length and/or scope when compared to the World Wars.
We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far
Conveniently forgetting all those dead Iraqis (civilian and others alike) eh?
A liberal is what the US would call the Green party or a socialist party.
Huh? I'm from Finland, and in here the word "Liberal" is associated with personal liberties and responsibilities, free markets, low taxation and the like. Hardly something the Greens and Socialists advocate.
I'm expecting normal people to use normal language, you expect normal people to correctly use legalese.
And in my "normal language", downloading movies/music from the net does not equal "theft". And, as it happens, legalese shares my viewpoint on the matter.
You are then free to say that in YOUR "normal language" it does equal "theft", but your definition is not my definition. And just about all the people I have talked with equal "theft" with actual removal of someones property. And that's something that making a digital copy of a song (for example) is not.
Few definitions of "theft". From dictionary.com:
"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
If I copy a song from the net, the original owner of the song still has the song, so I'm not "taking" anything from him.
From wikipedia:
"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, in others theft has replaced larceny."
Again: if I download a song from the net, the owner of that song still has his copy of the song, so I have NOT taken his property. Hell, he might not even know that I have a copy if his song.
Acquiring intellectual property without the consent of the owner would, therefore, be theft.
No it would not. It would be "copyright infringment". I would be infringing on the copyrights of the creator of the content. But I wouldn't be stealing anything. Really, this is all in the law-books, go look it up.
It could be argued that you are depriving the owner of the property the money that (s)he is legally entitled to for your copy of the content.
So the owner of the content gets deprived of sales? But even that is not "theft". And still: just because I download some song (for example) from the net does not mean that I would have bought the song legally, had it not been available illegally on the net. I admit it: I have downloaded "Reign of Fire" from the net. Had it not been available on the net, I wouldn't have bought anyway. So my downloading that movie did not deprive the creators of the movie one dime, since I wasn't going to buy it regardless. Yes, what I did was a copyright infringment, and I'm not even trying to justify it in any shape or form. I'm just showing that downloading content from the net does not automatically mean that the creators of the content were denied sales.
I also downloaded "Equilibrium". And once it became available in Finland on DVD, I went out and bought it. Were the creators of the movie denied sales? Furthermore: since the movie was never shown on cinemas in Finland, I wouldn't have bought the movie, since I had no way of telling that is it any good. Now I downloaded it, made sure it's good, and bought it the moment it became available. Were the moviemakers harmed by my downloading? Did I "steal" anything?
Theft means that someone deprives someone else from their property. Who is being deprived of their property here? I believe that the word you are looking for is "copyright infringment", not "theft". The two acts are called different, because they are different acts. downloading movies is not called theft because it's not theft.
Sure you can rationalize a set of values where taking a movie off bittorrent is different from stealling a DVD off the shelf of a store.
There is a huge difference between those two
But the reason people have moderated my original comment down as troll even though it is nothing of the kind is because they know deep down that what I am saying here is correct and they don't like to hear it.
Or you were modeed down because your comment was just plain WRONG, not to mention stupid? What Pirate Bay or it's users are doing is NOT theft, not even close. You can't call it theft because it's not theft.
No they aren't. There is no copyrighted material on their website. And even if there were, it wouldn't be stealing. If I shoplift a DVD from a store, I'm stealing. If I copy a movie from the net, I'm NOT stealing. I might be committing a copyright infringment, but it's NOT the same thing as stealing. If I steal something, it means that I deprive someone from their property. If I make a copy of that property, no-one gets deprived of anything.
You have the choice of running either Gnome or KDE, but Gnome will probably give your office workers all the warm fuzzies they are used to, and then some.
How so? You don't lose any functionality or eye-candy if you choose KDE instead. Hell, even Nat Friedman admitted that!
The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.
Go look at some airplane crash pictures, then look at the pictures of both the pentagon and the PA airplane crash.
I have, and I don't find anything strange in them.
Airplanes have crashed into skyscrapers in the past. They have crashed into older, weaker skyscrapers. None of those buildings fell.
ESB was hit by an B-25 after WW2 (IIRC). Difference there is that B-25 is a lot smaller than modern passenger-jet is, and it moved a lot slower. Also, the construction of ESB is different when compared to WTC. WTC's supporting frame is in the outside of the building, whereas in ESB (and most other skyscrapers) have the supporting construction in the middle of the building. In practice that means that ESB is good at withstanding external hits, but it's more vulnerable to internal attacks (bombs etc.). Vice versa on WTC. Yes, aircraft have hit building (even skyscrapers) in the past. But show me an incident where a big passenger-airliner hit a skyscraper at high speed. Can't find one, huh?
Go look at some videos of controlled demolition. Then go look at how the building 'collapsed' on 9/11. While you are looking also take a look at how the buildings which the airplanes hit collapsed and how the buildings which the airplanes didn't hit collapsed. If you notice a similarity then try to find a rational reason for that.
If it was just a huge conspiracy, why did they blow up WTC using a controlled demolition? Wouldn't it been a lot more realistic to make it topple over? By using a contoller demolition, they opened the door for all kinds of conspiracy-whackos. Why didn't they do it "more realistically" then?
If you look at the construction of the WTC, you will see that the way it crashed down makes perfect sense. Basically the floors fell on each other from top down. Had WTC been different type of skyscraper (like ESB) it would propably been different kind of collapse.
Seriously: you are just another conspiracy-nutcase. Hey, I heard that moonlandings were a hoax as well!
You really cut your password space down with overly-restrictive policies.
Yep. Many times I have seen cases where the IT-department decides to "make things secure" by making passwords "hard to crack". And in process of doing that, they jeopardize the security of the system. Once I saw a setup where the password had to be at least 12 characters long, it had to contain special characters and numbers, they couldn't re-use old passwords (not even with modifications), no normal words were allowed and it had to be changed every week. All nice and secure, right? Wrong. The passwords ended up being so complicated and difficult to remember, that users simply wrote them down on a piece of paper that they carried with them. Some had it in a post-it that was attached to their monitor. Some wrote it down on their pocket-calendar. Not like this.... Not like this.
Had the requirements for the password been a bit more reasonable, the user could have memorized them. But since the bar was set so high, there were pieces of papers in users desks where they had written down their passwords.
What makes you think that there were no bodies recovered from Pentagon? And the pictures I saw certainly had the plane disintegrate in to small pieces, even though they did not hit a stone building at high speed
And still, the plane that hit Pentagon was not 767 as you claimed. And EXPERTS have said that it's perfectly normal for a plane to disintegrate in to small pieces. And even still, there WERE debris found in and around Pentagon. So where does that leave your conspiracy-fantasy?
uh, the plane that hit the Pentagon was a 757, and not 767 you dimwit! And 757 is considerably smaller than 767 is. The C-130 and 757 are roughly the same size. The difference between the linked C-130 crash and the Pentagon crash is that the 757 was flying a lot faster (more impact-energy: even smaller debris), and the building it hit was a lot stronger. If the C-130 (a mil-spec plane) left no large debris after hitting a residential building, is it any wonder that a civilian aircraft of roughly the same size didn't leave any large debris after hitting a rock-solid building at high speed?
The grandparent claimed that there were no debris around the crash-site. I posted links to websites that A) showed that there indeed was debris in the crash-site and B) how in cases like this, there will be no huge pieces of debris laying around. Poth A and B together spell out the fact that the grandparent is WRONG. He was wrong, there's no going around that fact. And no, if he was just mistaken and admits that he was wrong, then he's not a moron. But if he still thinks that somethig he personally believes to be true, even though the evidence shows the opposite, then he IS a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
strange, I have seen some GNOME-users start to dislike KDE more and more. Hell, I have seen that trend is some of the GNOME-developers as well (*cough*Luis Villa*cough*)
For the subject at hand, they are. We are talking about the strength and capabilities of the military, period. The 300+ million men in China are next to irrelevant if there was to be a armed conflict involving China. Of course it has long-term benefits for the military and the country as a whole. But to me it seems that some people are reading the World Factbook and start to think "OMG! China has over 300 million soldiers!".
"manpower" means jack shit. How does China get those 342 million men in to Australia? On boats made of bamboo? What kind of weapons would they have? Sticks and spears? Yes, they could send wave after wave of men at their enemies in the battlefield. But what good does it do if they are wiped out before they can even see their foe? What good does it do if they starve to death because they have no means to supply them?
Besides, your figures merely show the number of men that are of right age to serve in the military. If they all went to war right now, they would be nothing more than an untrained mob with few weapons. What you need to look at is the actual number of trained soldiers in each countrys military. For Chinas Peoples Liberation Army that number is 2.25 million. A huge number, true. But there's more to the effectiveness of the military than raw manpower. just ebout everyone agrees that USA has the strongest military at the moment. How can that be since the Chinese clearly outman them? It's because the Chinese do not outgun them.
According to the World Factbook, Finland has over 1 million men available for military service. And that number sounds right. But still the actual number of soldiers in wartime army is around 250.000 (IIRC). So the "manpower"-figures that the World Factbook quotes are next to meaningless.
Well, yes:
"One advantage of having flown the Eurofighter, General Jumper said, is that it allows him to get first-hand knowledge of technology U.S. allies use and to see how America's handiwork stacks up. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology."
So he clearly disputes your claim of "they are not neck and neck". What you are doing is that you are looking at some paper-specs. He has actually flown both. Have you flown either of them? No? Then what makes you the expert on this field?
I don't see any indication of "F-22 is better than Typhoon" in that quite. I see him saying that they are two different planes with different design-goals, so comparing them is difficult.
Two F-15's tried to ambush Typhoon during joint exercises. The Typhoon outmanouvered them both and shot them down. Of course, it wasn't 5:1 engagement, but it was an engagement where the F-15's started from behind the Typhoon, and the Typhoon-pilot didn't even know that they were planning to ambush him.
Of course you can find individual mareas where F-22 is better than the Typhoon, and vice versa. Typhoon has superior man-machine interface and the AA-missile being developed for it is clearly superior (faster, longer range, more agile) to the AMRAAM that is used in the F-22.
What is this, a pissing-match? I quoted a pilot that has flown both. And he said that they are "neck and neck" (of course there are differences, since they have different design-goals). Then some Random slashdotter pulls some specs and claims "no, he's wrong. Just look at the specs!". While F-22 is usually placed before the Typhoon in AA-effectiveness, it should also be noted that F-22 costs over twice as much as the Typhoon does (F-22: $152M, Typhoon: $74M)
I don't think people are questioning the quality of US Engineering overall. What people are questioning is the claim that US Tech is superior, bar none. I think that USA just has shinier PowerPoint-presentations that some of the other countries do
Your way of thinking is naive way of thinking. Remember the "peace in our lifetime"-bullshit? No-one thought back then that war was imminent. Had you asked Finns in 1938 or early 1939 that "would you believe that USSR is going to attack Finland?", the typical answer would have been "No fucking way!". And look what happened. Hell, before the war people and politicians believed that there is no way there could be a war, and military received very little funding since it was thought to be useless. And when the war did start, they didn't even have uniforms for everyone, and air-force consisted of handful of obsolete planes, and artillery was basically out of ammo right from the start. And still, we have people saying "There is no way there's going to be a war, so why spend money on preparing for one?", when history clearly shows that such thinking is very short-sighted.
And besides: building a military takes a long time. You can't simply not spend any money or resources on it, and then re-build it from scratch in a short period of time. What if Australia dismantled their military, and few years from now they noticed that "Shit, China/Indonesia is about to invade us in just few months time!". They couldn't build an effective defence against it. They might draft handful of people, give them some training and assault-rifles and that's it. No advanced weapons-systems, no airforce, no effective navy, and no effective defence.
A wise man once said: "There will always be an army inside the country. Either your own, or someone elses."
When Finland bought F/A-18's from USA they were the top-of-the-line planes back then (and they are very, very good even today). Now, fighter-aircraft have a system which transmits data between the plane and the ground and integrates the plane in to the greater whole, and the Hornet is no exception. One of the first things we did was to rip the US-designed system out, and replaced it with a Finnish design, for the sole reason that the US system was just plain inferior.
Europe and their Eurofighter Typhoon? Like it or not, that is a VERY capable aircraft. F-22 might be a bit better, but F-22 also costs a lot more. And according to the only pilot that has actually flown both, they are neck and neck. He does say that F-22 has supercruise, but The Typhoon has it as well.
Well, not exactly. As it happens, there just hasn't been a war as large-scale as some of the past wars have been. Lots of people died in WW1 and WW2. WW2 killed more than WW1, partly due to more advanced methods of killing. But since WW2 we have just had relatively minor wars. Iraq War is pretty small potatoes, and even it resulted in something like 100.000 deaths. Vietnam (a lot smaller than either World Wars) caused over 2 million deaths. Korean Wars caused millions of casualties as well, but I don't know the number of deaths. So the amount of casualties have been relatively high, even though the wars have been very limited in length and/or scope when compared to the World Wars.
Conveniently forgetting all those dead Iraqis (civilian and others alike) eh?
Huh? I'm from Finland, and in here the word "Liberal" is associated with personal liberties and responsibilities, free markets, low taxation and the like. Hardly something the Greens and Socialists advocate.
And in my "normal language", downloading movies/music from the net does not equal "theft". And, as it happens, legalese shares my viewpoint on the matter.
You are then free to say that in YOUR "normal language" it does equal "theft", but your definition is not my definition. And just about all the people I have talked with equal "theft" with actual removal of someones property. And that's something that making a digital copy of a song (for example) is not.
Few definitions of "theft". From dictionary.com:
"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
If I copy a song from the net, the original owner of the song still has the song, so I'm not "taking" anything from him.
From wikipedia:
"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, in others theft has replaced larceny."
Again: if I download a song from the net, the owner of that song still has his copy of the song, so I have NOT taken his property. Hell, he might not even know that I have a copy if his song.
No it would not. It would be "copyright infringment". I would be infringing on the copyrights of the creator of the content. But I wouldn't be stealing anything. Really, this is all in the law-books, go look it up.
So the owner of the content gets deprived of sales? But even that is not "theft". And still: just because I download some song (for example) from the net does not mean that I would have bought the song legally, had it not been available illegally on the net. I admit it: I have downloaded "Reign of Fire" from the net. Had it not been available on the net, I wouldn't have bought anyway. So my downloading that movie did not deprive the creators of the movie one dime, since I wasn't going to buy it regardless. Yes, what I did was a copyright infringment, and I'm not even trying to justify it in any shape or form. I'm just showing that downloading content from the net does not automatically mean that the creators of the content were denied sales.
I also downloaded "Equilibrium". And once it became available in Finland on DVD, I went out and bought it. Were the creators of the movie denied sales? Furthermore: since the movie was never shown on cinemas in Finland, I wouldn't have bought the movie, since I had no way of telling that is it any good. Now I downloaded it, made sure it's good, and bought it the moment it became available. Were the moviemakers harmed by my downloading? Did I "steal" anything?
Theft means that someone deprives someone else from their property. Who is being deprived of their property here? I believe that the word you are looking for is "copyright infringment", not "theft". The two acts are called different, because they are different acts. downloading movies is not called theft because it's not theft.
There is a huge difference between those two
Or you were modeed down because your comment was just plain WRONG, not to mention stupid? What Pirate Bay or it's users are doing is NOT theft, not even close. You can't call it theft because it's not theft.
No they aren't. There is no copyrighted material on their website. And even if there were, it wouldn't be stealing. If I shoplift a DVD from a store, I'm stealing. If I copy a movie from the net, I'm NOT stealing. I might be committing a copyright infringment, but it's NOT the same thing as stealing. If I steal something, it means that I deprive someone from their property. If I make a copy of that property, no-one gets deprived of anything.
How so? You don't lose any functionality or eye-candy if you choose KDE instead. Hell, even Nat Friedman admitted that!
really? What are they stealing?
I have, and I don't find anything strange in them.
ESB was hit by an B-25 after WW2 (IIRC). Difference there is that B-25 is a lot smaller than modern passenger-jet is, and it moved a lot slower. Also, the construction of ESB is different when compared to WTC. WTC's supporting frame is in the outside of the building, whereas in ESB (and most other skyscrapers) have the supporting construction in the middle of the building. In practice that means that ESB is good at withstanding external hits, but it's more vulnerable to internal attacks (bombs etc.). Vice versa on WTC. Yes, aircraft have hit building (even skyscrapers) in the past. But show me an incident where a big passenger-airliner hit a skyscraper at high speed. Can't find one, huh?
If it was just a huge conspiracy, why did they blow up WTC using a controlled demolition? Wouldn't it been a lot more realistic to make it topple over? By using a contoller demolition, they opened the door for all kinds of conspiracy-whackos. Why didn't they do it "more realistically" then?
If you look at the construction of the WTC, you will see that the way it crashed down makes perfect sense. Basically the floors fell on each other from top down. Had WTC been different type of skyscraper (like ESB) it would propably been different kind of collapse.
Seriously: you are just another conspiracy-nutcase. Hey, I heard that moonlandings were a hoax as well!
Yep. Many times I have seen cases where the IT-department decides to "make things secure" by making passwords "hard to crack". And in process of doing that, they jeopardize the security of the system. Once I saw a setup where the password had to be at least 12 characters long, it had to contain special characters and numbers, they couldn't re-use old passwords (not even with modifications), no normal words were allowed and it had to be changed every week. All nice and secure, right? Wrong. The passwords ended up being so complicated and difficult to remember, that users simply wrote them down on a piece of paper that they carried with them. Some had it in a post-it that was attached to their monitor. Some wrote it down on their pocket-calendar. Not like this.... Not like this.
Had the requirements for the password been a bit more reasonable, the user could have memorized them. But since the bar was set so high, there were pieces of papers in users desks where they had written down their passwords.
What makes you think that there were no bodies recovered from Pentagon? And the pictures I saw certainly had the plane disintegrate in to small pieces, even though they did not hit a stone building at high speed
And still, the plane that hit Pentagon was not 767 as you claimed. And EXPERTS have said that it's perfectly normal for a plane to disintegrate in to small pieces. And even still, there WERE debris found in and around Pentagon. So where does that leave your conspiracy-fantasy?
uh, the plane that hit the Pentagon was a 757, and not 767 you dimwit! And 757 is considerably smaller than 767 is. The C-130 and 757 are roughly the same size. The difference between the linked C-130 crash and the Pentagon crash is that the 757 was flying a lot faster (more impact-energy: even smaller debris), and the building it hit was a lot stronger. If the C-130 (a mil-spec plane) left no large debris after hitting a residential building, is it any wonder that a civilian aircraft of roughly the same size didn't leave any large debris after hitting a rock-solid building at high speed?
Sssshhhh. You are not supposed to tell paranoid idiots that they are in fact idiots.
The grandparent claimed that there were no debris around the crash-site. I posted links to websites that A) showed that there indeed was debris in the crash-site and B) how in cases like this, there will be no huge pieces of debris laying around. Poth A and B together spell out the fact that the grandparent is WRONG. He was wrong, there's no going around that fact. And no, if he was just mistaken and admits that he was wrong, then he's not a moron. But if he still thinks that somethig he personally believes to be true, even though the evidence shows the opposite, then he IS a moron.
The links also discussed how in cases like this there are no huge pieces of debris laying around. Did you really follow the links?
Why is HURD still nowhere near finished (as in: ready to be used)?