Since 9/11, how many additional hours of your life have been spent in airports?
I have been on no less than 20 round trip flights, 2 international, since 9/11. There is nothing unreasonable and rediculous about them at all. Last summer, a junior security screener started to make a fuss about the three drops of water left at the bottom of my bottle (but was calmed down by a more mature colleague).
When I unpacked that carry-on bag at home, I realized I'd forgotten to remove my metal knife-fork-spoon travel utensils, an almost full dispenser of gelatinous deodorant, and my Swedish firesteel. They went through security on the transcontinental security check, and the domestic cross-country transfer (where the fuss was made).
trolling for names, hawking their job candidates, and refusing to hang up or stop calling Give them fake names and numbers. Give their candidates fake appointments to fake addresses.
It's perfectly legal and their clients are going to stop dealing with them after a few trips to a vacant lot at 9am sharp (it sucks having to make their clients suffer, but they're the ones dealing with these jerks, it'll be a life lesson in karma).
"The BBC has given an official statement to FreemaAgyeman.com, calling the Sun's story "absolute rubbish"." Thanks for the hint: Direct link to "shame on the Sun".
it doesn't sound like its poor support for the show, and from what I gather its quite popular there. It sounds more like the senior staff are just burnt out. Maybe if they just worked on the good Doctor and stopped wasting their time on spin offs and stupid spin offs we wouldn't be in this mess?
But following your link, am I to understand that senators get the money *personally*? I mean, is it for the individual itself? Because in my country, the money given is legally transferred to the party of said politician. If I remember correctly, it goes to their election campaign fund, which isn't money they can spend as they please. If you want an entertaining explanation of US politics, I recommend "America: The book", from the good people at The Daily Show. Historical background, helpfull graphics, and humor a plenty.
Not to mention about $12k each from Qwest, Time Warner, Cablevision, and Viacom, all of which have at least some activity in the bandwidth market. I noticed, but the top spot made it concise enough to get the point across as effectively as possible. Especially since it's now the new AT&T, back from the abyss whence it was banished.
So if I understand you correctly your argument is that a job that regularly requires weeks of planning and expert drilling, cabling and placement of explosives that by your own research, "there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world" capable of performing was done [...] And that makes more sense to you than a building collapsing [Magically in the same way under non-controlled conditions]? Yes.
If it had collapsed by accident, it would not have collapsed in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition. It would have fallen unevenly, in pieces, spreading debris all around, like 100% of accidental building collapses that didn't occur on September 11th, 2001, in NY, NY. Only in the traumatic conditions of a world in a state of shock at the horror it is witnessing can you get people to suspend their disbelief to that fact.
Also, the fire was not well fueled, you can plainly see that only a few small fires were burning here and there. I know there was supposed to be a assload of fuel in the building, but you can't find any evidence that it was there and burning that day. I've already linked to the Madrid fire, you can go see what fire strong enough to bend steel REALLY looks like (hint: it's not a small flame here and there in just a few windows). You can also see the firefighter videos from within the building when they get the call to evacuate. Heat strong enough to magically snap all the support columns in the precise locations and at the exact timing required for that beautiful implosion would have roasted those brave men.
Furthermore, controlled demolitions cause the building to collapse under it's own weight, they just break the support structures in a complicated way so it falls in one piece. So there is no "instead of collapsing under it's own weight". Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't throw these stupid points around?
And lastly, people did notice the construction crews in the weeks before the attacks. They were told it was routine maintenance. Why in the hell would they think that the owner-approved crews were doing anything nefarious?
Your braindead nitpicking doesn't change the basic point: Buildings never implode by themselves, it takes expert professionals to make that happen.
forget the keyboard and mouse: The next generation of computer interfaces will be hands-on. That is THE stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've been to fark!
Now, excuse me while I try to nudge my mouse with my mouth...
Have a nice day. DISCLAIMER: The author of this post does not guarantee that your day will be nice. Moreover, the author of this post is not responsible for any damages resulting in your trying to have a nice day. As a woman, I find that remark offensive! Being "nice" is a servile attitude imposed by the patriarchal order! You won't get away with your misogynistic orders, I'll see you in court!
Rivers have "dammage". The word you're looking for is damage. And, while I'm not sure you have a strong grasp of which building sustained more damage, collapses are as much determined by where the damage is than how much damage there is. Anyone who's ever played Jenga know this.
Picking on typos. My, how incredibly mature. Jenga. Excellent example. When has THAT ever collapsed neatly, smartass?
I'll repeat this fact you conveniently ignore: Buildings do not fall into their own footprints spontaneously. To achieve such a highly coordinated feat, you need expert placement of demolition charges.
I dispute that "fact", which you have never given a shred of evidence for.
Why would the military-industrial complex (thanks for updating me on which perennial conspiracy-theory villain you're using!) destroy WTC7 so that it would collapse neatly into its own footprint, while failing to destroy WTC 1 and 2 the same way?
Did the towers fall over on the side, or did they collapse in a column? Were the towers simply too big for their rubble to be contained in the area of their base?
Are you too fucking stupid to think this through on your own?
Why would the military-industrial complex be worried about protecting other buildings from damage when they were deliberately committing an act of terrorism?
They own these buildings, it was a conservative expenditure of ressources. Gotta spend money to make money.
Why would they go to all the effort to make 19 predominantly Saudi nationals all appear at the same time on the four airplanes they crashed, with Arabic-speaking voices on the cockpit recorders, if they had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia?
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.
Why would they bother crashing planes into the towers if they was rigged with explosives to start with?
Obviously, so you'll think the planes caused the collapse. DUH! Are you fucking retarded?
Why did they arbitrarily restrain the attack to the WTC and Pentagon?
Because they needed a symbolic attack, they aren't trying to inflict real damage. Why would REAL terrorist stop at this one attack? Why no follow through?
Why did none of the 100,000 WTC inhabitants ever notice the explosives being installed?
"maintenance crews" were performing "repairs" on the structures that collapsed in the weeks before the events. Portions of the buildings were off-limits to the public to the day the attacks occurred.
How come no one has come forth admitting to being a part of this gigantic conspiracy?
Because the CIA is more subtle than the KGB. They killed over two thousand civilians that day, about THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE SINCE (5K+ of those US military personel), and you think they'd stop short at killing one more if he didn't keep his mouth shut? Do you make mommy type for you? 'Cause you sound too stupid to tie your own shoes.
I think the more important question is--what, other than your political biases, leads you to choose a gigantic conspiracy theory over thinking that maybe you were wrong about building collapses?
It would almost always be more effective to volunteer less, work overtime, and give more. A Dutch banker can pay for a lot of soup-kitchen chefs and servers with a couple of hours' worth of his salary I like that, in order for that stupid remark to appear credible, it has to be a fucking DUCTCH BANKER'S OVERTIME SALARY that's given to charity. Obviously, people who are altruistic shouldn't give their time to actually act on their belief, they should be helpfull cogs, working more overtime for no money. What kind of fascist wet dream is that?
P.S. If you're ever in need of first aid at a public event, ask if the respondent is employed or volunteering. Refuse treatment if he's a volunteer. P.P.S. Don't worry, if you pass out we'll place your inert body so you don't suffocate in your own vomit, we're allowed to do that even if you refused treatment before your condition became life-threatning.
I'm amazed at the claim so many people make that "buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own" as some sort of proof that the collapse of the buildings were controlled. Do you think demolition engineers somehow break the laws of physics in performing their work; no, they simply use their knowledge of physics and engineering to create a situation most likely to result in a clean collapse but that in no way means that those same conditions can not occur in 'the wild', so to speak. Are you also amazed at the claim so many people make that "chunks of steel plating do not float", since shipbuilders can simply use their knowledge of physics and engineering to create a situation most likely to result in an aircraft carrier? That this, in no way, means those same conditions can not occur in 'the wild', so to speak?
Why don't you read what actual demolition professionals think:
THE MYTH OF 'IMPLOSION' the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience--and insurance--to perform these true building implosions.
In this article, we'll find out how demolition crews plan and execute these spectacular implosions. The violent blasts and billowing dust clouds may look chaotic, but a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see. [...] Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [...] destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. [...] Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. [...] Two towers in the Holly Street Development in London, England, were demolished in March 2001. They were a formidable challenge for the blasting firm, Controlled Demolition Group, Ltd.. One tower had to be rigged so it would fall over on its side, away from a gas line, while the other had to collapse perfectly into its own footprint, to avoid damaging neighboring structures. [...] If they underestimate what explosive power is needed, or some of the explosives fail to ignite, the structure may not be completely demolished. [...] Typically, the actual implosion only takes a few seconds. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion. How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for a hundred years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle?
Ok, so evolution can offer a possible explanation. Does that disprove a God? *pff* How can you disprove something that isn't governed by the laws of nature that you are using to do the proof? Actually, diarrhea disproves the Christian god: An omnipotent, benovelant being wouldn't create diarrhea. q.e.d.
Seriously, a hardwired belief is not proof of the belief. Much to the contrary, it explains why every culture in the world expressed that hardwiring in widely different ways. Belief in a power greater than ourselves is the result of our dependence as infant to parents greater tan ourselves at the time, which we keep once we become those powers, so we make something up to fill the void.
Now if you'll excuse me, Zeus wants me to burn some goat fat. If I don't do it, I might get hit by lightning!
It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator. 1- You pulled that second bit outta your ass. 2- Social animals have a higher survival rate when their pack mates are healthy, altruism helps survival, and is an evolutionary pressure.
Any yet the very first link when searching for WTC7 DAMAGE shows a clear picture of the building with a large chunk taken out of the lower section as well as first hand accounts of the damage from people who saw it first hand. Funny that. Real funny.
Try to find that gash in a video.
And that STILL doesn't cover the fact that buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own, nor that other buildings suffered greater damage that day without collapsing, neither in their own footprint nor otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been on no less than 20 round trip flights, 2 international, since 9/11. There is nothing unreasonable and rediculous about them at all. Last summer, a junior security screener started to make a fuss about the three drops of water left at the bottom of my bottle (but was calmed down by a more mature colleague).
When I unpacked that carry-on bag at home, I realized I'd forgotten to remove my metal knife-fork-spoon travel utensils, an almost full dispenser of gelatinous deodorant, and my Swedish firesteel. They went through security on the transcontinental security check, and the domestic cross-country transfer (where the fuss was made).
Give their candidates fake appointments to fake addresses.
It's perfectly legal and their clients are going to stop dealing with them after a few trips to a vacant lot at 9am sharp (it sucks having to make their clients suffer, but they're the ones dealing with these jerks, it'll be a life lesson in karma).
Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as surprise, assumptions, fear, and an almost fanatical loyalty to the ayatollah...
If you want an entertaining explanation of US politics, I recommend "America: The book", from the good people at The Daily Show. Historical background, helpfull graphics, and humor a plenty.
Especially since it's now the new AT&T, back from the abyss whence it was banished.
JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
Top Contributors
1 AT&T Inc $39,500
If it had collapsed by accident, it would not have collapsed in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition.
It would have fallen unevenly, in pieces, spreading debris all around, like 100% of accidental building collapses that didn't occur on September 11th, 2001, in NY, NY.
Only in the traumatic conditions of a world in a state of shock at the horror it is witnessing can you get people to suspend their disbelief to that fact.
Also, the fire was not well fueled, you can plainly see that only a few small fires were burning here and there. I know there was supposed to be a assload of fuel in the building, but you can't find any evidence that it was there and burning that day. I've already linked to the Madrid fire, you can go see what fire strong enough to bend steel REALLY looks like (hint: it's not a small flame here and there in just a few windows).
You can also see the firefighter videos from within the building when they get the call to evacuate. Heat strong enough to magically snap all the support columns in the precise locations and at the exact timing required for that beautiful implosion would have roasted those brave men.
Furthermore, controlled demolitions cause the building to collapse under it's own weight, they just break the support structures in a complicated way so it falls in one piece. So there is no "instead of collapsing under it's own weight". Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't throw these stupid points around?
And lastly, people did notice the construction crews in the weeks before the attacks. They were told it was routine maintenance. Why in the hell would they think that the owner-approved crews were doing anything nefarious?
Your braindead nitpicking doesn't change the basic point: Buildings never implode by themselves, it takes expert professionals to make that happen.
4 posts in a thread, all falsely modded as flamebait at the same time.
Someone has mod points they don't deserve, a personal grudge, and no moral fiber.
Now, excuse me while I try to nudge my mouse with my mouth...
Rivers have "dammage". The word you're looking for is damage. And, while I'm not sure you have a strong grasp of which building sustained more damage, collapses are as much determined by where the damage is than how much damage there is. Anyone who's ever played Jenga know this.
Picking on typos. My, how incredibly mature.
Jenga. Excellent example. When has THAT ever collapsed neatly, smartass?
I dispute that "fact", which you have never given a shred of evidence for.
I gave you a five page article AND a link to a company's explanation of how their business works. Not to mention numerous videos that explained this.
It's not my fault you're too much in a hurry to troll to bother reading and watching them.
Why would the military-industrial complex (thanks for updating me on which perennial conspiracy-theory villain you're using!) destroy WTC7 so that it would collapse neatly into its own footprint, while failing to destroy WTC 1 and 2 the same way?
Did the towers fall over on the side, or did they collapse in a column?
Were the towers simply too big for their rubble to be contained in the area of their base?
Are you too fucking stupid to think this through on your own?
Why would the military-industrial complex be worried about protecting other buildings from damage when they were deliberately committing an act of terrorism?
They own these buildings, it was a conservative expenditure of ressources.
Gotta spend money to make money.
Why would they go to all the effort to make 19 predominantly Saudi nationals all appear at the same time on the four airplanes they crashed, with Arabic-speaking voices on the cockpit recorders, if they had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia?
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.
Why would they bother crashing planes into the towers if they was rigged with explosives to start with?
Obviously, so you'll think the planes caused the collapse. DUH! Are you fucking retarded?
Why did they arbitrarily restrain the attack to the WTC and Pentagon?
Because they needed a symbolic attack, they aren't trying to inflict real damage.
Why would REAL terrorist stop at this one attack? Why no follow through?
Why did none of the 100,000 WTC inhabitants ever notice the explosives being installed?
"maintenance crews" were performing "repairs" on the structures that collapsed in the weeks before the events. Portions of the buildings were off-limits to the public to the day the attacks occurred.
How come no one has come forth admitting to being a part of this gigantic conspiracy?
Because the CIA is more subtle than the KGB.
They killed over two thousand civilians that day, about THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE SINCE (5K+ of those US military personel), and you think they'd stop short at killing one more if he didn't keep his mouth shut? Do you make mommy type for you? 'Cause you sound too stupid to tie your own shoes.
I think the more important question is--what, other than your political biases, leads you to choose a gigantic conspiracy theory over thinking that maybe you were wrong about building collapses?
Obviously, people who are altruistic shouldn't give their time to actually act on their belief, they should be helpfull cogs, working more overtime for no money. What kind of fascist wet dream is that?
P.S. If you're ever in need of first aid at a public event, ask if the respondent is employed or volunteering. Refuse treatment if he's a volunteer.
P.P.S. Don't worry, if you pass out we'll place your inert body so you don't suffocate in your own vomit, we're allowed to do that even if you refused treatment before your condition became life-threatning.
Why don't you read what actual demolition professionals think:
THE MYTH OF 'IMPLOSION'
the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience--and insurance--to perform these true building implosions.
In this article, we'll find out how demolition crews plan and execute these spectacular implosions. The violent blasts and billowing dust clouds may look chaotic, but a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see.
[...]
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
[...]
destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse.
[...]
Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half.
[...]
Two towers in the Holly Street Development in London, England, were demolished in March 2001. They were a formidable challenge for the blasting firm, Controlled Demolition Group, Ltd.. One tower had to be rigged so it would fall over on its side, away from a gas line, while the other had to collapse perfectly into its own footprint, to avoid damaging neighboring structures.
[...]
If they underestimate what explosive power is needed, or some of the explosives fail to ignite, the structure may not be completely demolished.
[...]
Typically, the actual implosion only takes a few seconds. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion. How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for a hundred years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle?
Did I?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheolog
To misuse an old cliche, you must be new here.
Seriously, a hardwired belief is not proof of the belief. Much to the contrary, it explains why every culture in the world expressed that hardwiring in widely different ways. Belief in a power greater than ourselves is the result of our dependence as infant to parents greater tan ourselves at the time, which we keep once we become those powers, so we make something up to fill the void.
Now if you'll excuse me, Zeus wants me to burn some goat fat. If I don't do it, I might get hit by lightning!
2- Social animals have a higher survival rate when their pack mates are healthy, altruism helps survival, and is an evolutionary pressure.
Funny that. Real funny.
Try to find that gash in a video.
And that STILL doesn't cover the fact that buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own, nor that other buildings suffered greater damage that day without collapsing, neither in their own footprint nor otherwise.