it makes no sense to suppose WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, because WTC 1 and 2 *did* cause damage to surrounding buildings (thus making it inconsistent to be so cautious with WTC 7) and because there's no reason to make a neatly contained implosion when your objective is to destroy inhabited office buildings to further your Masonic plot from outer space. Dammage like this to a building right next to the twin tower, a building that never collapsed even though it sustained much more dammage than WTC7?
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. No steel building has ever collapsed from fire. WT7 did not suffer extensive dammage from the collapse of the twin towers (unlike the standing building in the pic above).
And lastly, you have not a single shred of evidence to support your wild claim that steel buildings collapse on their own due to fire, instead you only offer stupid insults and straw men. Masons from space? WTF is wrong with you? The milatary-industrial-congress complex has the means and the motives to get this done. Their budgets and influence were steadily declining after the end of the cold war: (pdf) Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.
we reserve the right to use them if needed (although we haven't used them in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq). I just checked, and I found an article about moving stockpiles to border countries in the run up to the invasion, but no proof of their use. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, since I originally assumed that bringing them there was a sign of intent to use.
My way doesn't involve treason being committed by people who would probably rather not suffer the consequences of being caught. Treason holds a death penalty, and our government has shown a desire to avoid getting killed. [...] the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened. You don't believe they did it because it would be bad if they got caught. And then you flat out say that there is no way in hell they'll get caught.
Face it, you don't want to believe. Not because of the facts, but because it is much more comfortable for you to think evil lies on the outside rather than on the inside.
P.S. Go read the definition of a conspiracy, you demonstrated that you lack understanding of that term. P.P.S. Overt? They didn't hide what they were doing until it was done? Like Pearl harbor, they announced it the day before through official channels and launched a full scale massive attack in full view of the world's most advanced radar system? They didn't hide in commercial plane traffic or anything? While you have a dictionary open, check "overt" and "covert".
a 40-story skycraper will collapse from debris impact. There was no extensive debris impact.
Ya didn't read my link huh? "a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see." And you think this one just... happened all by itself? By magic?
You think I hadn't seen that video of the "oh noes, center collapsed first, lol", or worse, that it doesn't show controlled implosion? This one has an aerial view of the post-implosion debris, where you can see just how neatly it collapsed.
I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories. [...] I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse. [...] We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else. 1- You believe the theory that 19 guys conspired to take down 4 planes, and 25 new york buildings. 2- No shred of evidence exist for your theory of a conspiracy to smuggle explosives on planes on 9-11. 3- That doesn't explain everything.
it's clearly impossible that we didn't know enough about airline impacts at the time, so it must have been a secret government conspiracy. You didn't follow the links on WTC7, which collapsed without a plane impact. You are trolling, DIAF.
Notice how the entire building, from floor to roof top, falls as one single entity? The top doesn't collapse on the lower floors, forcing them down in a domino effect. The building doesn't fracture, it folds in on it's own footprint in one fell swoop. The outer edges are even pulled in, away from the surrounding buildings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication One of the side effects is headache. Care to play another round of the intrawebs? "Initial symptoms typically include light-headedness, sometimes accompanied by nausea, vomiting, headache and/or malaise. Plasma sodium levels below 100 mmol/L (2.3g/L) frequently result in cerebral edema, seizures, coma, and death "
It hurts your head if you take enough of it to kill you. You think it's the dying that hurts? Or drinking water? If you think it's drinking water, don't bother replying, just never ingest any water ever again.
If you choose to still drink water more frequently than once every four days, don't dismiss real medical issues with nonsense.
this is simply a case of idiots not knowing the definition between censorship and the gatekeeper effect. Censorship means any suppression of information. You're the idiot who argues against the dictionary.
Why don't you cough up a lik to a definition from a credible source that supports your interpretation, and a link to a definition of your precious "gatekeeper effect" (from the same source so it's consistent).
the DVD media Hi, you gave me a link to a clip from Sweet Remedy in another thread, I wanted to let you know that it turns out they ARE on youTube: http://youtube.com/sweetremedyfilm The quicktime-challenged can now see it on-line at the most standard video site on the web.
This was the closest thread I could find where DVD-buying VS on-line distribution wasn't too far off topic:)
you think eating (drinking) Splenda will give you headaches, so it does. People that DON'T have this idea in their head generally do NOT notice any sort of correlation between Splenda and headaches. I get a sudden migraine. When I'm well enough to think straight and read ingredients, I retrace what I ate in the last 3 days. My neurologist gave me a long list of possible migraine-causing foods and additives, I check to see if anything slipped in.
Aspartame is THE worse offender. It takes very little to cause a migraine, and they come in fast and hard. About 30 minutes after unknowingly accepting a poisoned mint (or whatever), I get very sick. Every. Fucking. Time. MSG is pretty bad too, but it takes more to hurt as much, and it comes in slower.
I wish I had the lobbying power of Pesico, so I could fight back against their disinformation campaign. But the best I can do is offer my testimonial and research links on slashdot.
No, I think the future is in Flash. But the 10% figure the Microsoft guy quoted was for HD players So they have a growing market share in a dying sub-market? Awesome.
What if a building could adapt its shape, texture, light, sounds, and heat to your presence? Only if it can also read our moods. How would it know if I am in the mood to read a book (good light source) or to watch TV (dimmer)? Good choice, Dave, the on-line reviews are very positive. When you're done, would you like to play a game of chess?
1)Make a bot that scans tech-related sites. 2)Upon seeing new content, bot posts it to slashdot. 3)Bribe the editors regularly. 4)Put ads on your site. 5)Link everything to your site. 6)Profit!! I'm patenting that!
Sixty years ago censorship was a powerful word. I want to restore it. You show that windmill who's boss!;-)
But I would try to use qualifiers instead, "hard censorship" VS "soft censorship", or something akin to that. You can't escape the brave new definition. And more to the point, you shouldn't. Burying a news story with noise (check the dates) isn't the same thing as destroying the people who report the story, but in the grand scheme of things, the result is the same. If they could destroy the people to keep their info hidden, they would, but since it would only attract attention (or those people are out of their reach), they get a diversionary tactic going instead to achieve the desired result: Suppression of information.
That's why I defend the "diluted" use of the word, because I think it's just as bad, fundamentally.
Re:Great to hear everyone's personal experiences
on
A Million Zunes Sold
·
· Score: 1
I hate to interrupt this lovely Zune hate-fest (since it became cool to hate on it for no apparent reason) No apparent reason???
Hmmm... a player that adds DRM to free music. WONDERfull.
I'd hoped that the Zune would be a stronger competitor to the iPod, offering things Apple didn't and raising the bar on portable players generally. But you got treatment and now the seizures and weird delusions about the innovation relationship between Apple and Microsoft have subsided? Glad to have you back and coherent;)
Apple doesn't have a market share of 100 million iPods. They've got an _installed base_ of 100 million iPods. During the first three months of '07, Apple sold 10,549,000 iPods - but the Shuffle and the Nano don't count (flash-based). I'm sorry to jump in your fun numbers game, but...
Do you think the future of iPods (in the generic sense) is in hard drives? Because the way I see things going, it seems like non-mechanical storage is on the march.
The term 'censorship' is derived from the Roman office of 'censor'. A censor was charged with the protection of public morals. To excercise censorship was to be able to eradicate any idea from the public sphere. They regarded it much the way that we regard the eradication of communicable diseases. Allowing even one vector to spread a disease is a failure. All disease vectors have to be stopped. It is this absolute nature of censorship that our modern definition has lost. The romans didn't have telecommunications.
These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars, or in the 18th century, or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving, because of policies that we are involved in - we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and responsible for. And what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the interests of suffering people and not the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they're allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system. -- Noam Chomsky
More primitive societies saw the need to suppress all sources of information. But you don't need to find all the people who know something you don't want getting out. You can simply make sure that they are ignored, that works just as well.
The Windsor Tower Fire was not caused by aircraft impact Tell me then what is so special about an airplane impact. Technically, not psychologically. And do read my other reply in there, before you say something stupid, I covered the heat insulation issue already.
Except that fire has never before or since caused the collapse of a steel-structure building.
And never before or since has a fully-fueled Boeing jetliner crashed into a high-rise building.
The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid
Overview Location: Madrid, Spain Fire Event: 12 February 2005 Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire. Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Notice that the floors above the exposed beams partially collapsed, but without bringing down the rest of the building like a house of cards. And don't forget that the twin towers were engineered to resist airplane impacts: Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology found a reference to a study of the effects of a Boeing 707 hitting the buildings at 600 mph, which would be faster than either of the two planes that hit on 9/11. In line with Skilling's remarks, this study apparently found that the buildings would not collapse in that event.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
No steel building has ever collapsed from fire.
WT7 did not suffer extensive dammage from the collapse of the twin towers (unlike the standing building in the pic above).
And lastly, you have not a single shred of evidence to support your wild claim that steel buildings collapse on their own due to fire, instead you only offer stupid insults and straw men.
Masons from space? WTF is wrong with you? The milatary-industrial-congress complex has the means and the motives to get this done. Their budgets and influence were steadily declining after the end of the cold war: (pdf)
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a
new Pearl Harbor. interests or that of its allies in space
or the "infosphere" will find it
difficult to exert global political
leadership.
REBUILDING
AMERICA'S
DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century
A Report of
The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
[...]
the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened. You don't believe they did it because it would be bad if they got caught. And then you flat out say that there is no way in hell they'll get caught.
Face it, you don't want to believe.
Not because of the facts, but because it is much more comfortable for you to think evil lies on the outside rather than on the inside.
P.S. Go read the definition of a conspiracy, you demonstrated that you lack understanding of that term.
P.P.S. Overt? They didn't hide what they were doing until it was done? Like Pearl harbor, they announced it the day before through official channels and launched a full scale massive attack in full view of the world's most advanced radar system? They didn't hide in commercial plane traffic or anything? While you have a dictionary open, check "overt" and "covert".
Ya didn't read my link huh? "a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see."
And you think this one just... happened all by itself? By magic?
You think I hadn't seen that video of the "oh noes, center collapsed first, lol", or worse, that it doesn't show controlled implosion?
This one has an aerial view of the post-implosion debris, where you can see just how neatly it collapsed.
This one shows the neatly cut and melted support columns still standing in the debris!
That wasn't replying to a post talking about WTC7, that was... another reply of yours in the same thread under the same title on the same subject!?!
Damn, that's still trolling.
[...]
I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse.
[...]
We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else. 1- You believe the theory that 19 guys conspired to take down 4 planes, and 25 new york buildings.
2- No shred of evidence exist for your theory of a conspiracy to smuggle explosives on planes on 9-11.
3- That doesn't explain everything.
You are trolling, DIAF.
And the fact that a building collapsed that day without the plane impact.
watch the vid before you say the towers fell on it
Notice how the entire building, from floor to roof top, falls as one single entity? The top doesn't collapse on the lower floors, forcing them down in a domino effect. The building doesn't fracture, it folds in on it's own footprint in one fell swoop. The outer edges are even pulled in, away from the surrounding buildings.
This is what an out of control building collapse looks like. And that was a structurally-weakened building.
One of the side effects is headache. Care to play another round of the intrawebs? "Initial symptoms typically include light-headedness, sometimes accompanied by nausea, vomiting, headache and/or malaise. Plasma sodium levels below 100 mmol/L (2.3g/L) frequently result in cerebral edema, seizures, coma, and death "
It hurts your head if you take enough of it to kill you.
You think it's the dying that hurts? Or drinking water?
If you think it's drinking water, don't bother replying, just never ingest any water ever again.
If you choose to still drink water more frequently than once every four days, don't dismiss real medical issues with nonsense.
Why don't you cough up a lik to a definition from a credible source that supports your interpretation, and a link to a definition of your precious "gatekeeper effect" (from the same source so it's consistent).
The quicktime-challenged can now see it on-line at the most standard video site on the web.
This was the closest thread I could find where DVD-buying VS on-line distribution wasn't too far off topic
When I'm well enough to think straight and read ingredients, I retrace what I ate in the last 3 days. My neurologist gave me a long list of possible migraine-causing foods and additives, I check to see if anything slipped in.
Aspartame is THE worse offender. It takes very little to cause a migraine, and they come in fast and hard. About 30 minutes after unknowingly accepting a poisoned mint (or whatever), I get very sick. Every. Fucking. Time.
MSG is pretty bad too, but it takes more to hurt as much, and it comes in slower.
I wish I had the lobbying power of Pesico, so I could fight back against their disinformation campaign. But the best I can do is offer my testimonial and research links on slashdot.
Awesome.
Only if it can also read our moods. How would it know if I am in the mood to read a book (good light source) or to watch TV (dimmer)? Good choice, Dave, the on-line reviews are very positive.
When you're done, would you like to play a game of chess?
2)Upon seeing new content, bot posts it to slashdot.
3)Bribe the editors regularly.
4)Put ads on your site.
5)Link everything to your site.
6)Profit!! I'm patenting that!
But I would try to use qualifiers instead, "hard censorship" VS "soft censorship", or something akin to that. You can't escape the brave new definition. And more to the point, you shouldn't. Burying a news story with noise (check the dates) isn't the same thing as destroying the people who report the story, but in the grand scheme of things, the result is the same. If they could destroy the people to keep their info hidden, they would, but since it would only attract attention (or those people are out of their reach), they get a diversionary tactic going instead to achieve the desired result: Suppression of information.
That's why I defend the "diluted" use of the word, because I think it's just as bad, fundamentally.
Hmmm... a player that adds DRM to free music. WONDERfull.
Do you think the future of iPods (in the generic sense) is in hard drives?
Because the way I see things going, it seems like non-mechanical storage is on the march.
These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars, or in the 18th century, or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving, because of policies that we are involved in - we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and responsible for. And what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the interests of suffering people and not the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they're allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system.
-- Noam Chomsky
More primitive societies saw the need to suppress all sources of information. But you don't need to find all the people who know something you don't want getting out. You can simply make sure that they are ignored, that works just as well.
Technically, not psychologically.
And do read my other reply in there, before you say something stupid, I covered the heat insulation issue already.
And never before or since has a fully-fueled Boeing jetliner crashed into a high-rise building.
The Windsor Tower Fire, MadridOverview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Notice that the floors above the exposed beams partially collapsed, but without bringing down the rest of the building like a house of cards.
And don't forget that the twin towers were engineered to resist airplane impacts:
Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology found a reference to a study of the effects of a Boeing 707 hitting the buildings at 600 mph, which would be faster than either of the two planes that hit on 9/11. In line with Skilling's remarks, this study apparently found that the buildings would not collapse in that event.