"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event Ã" like a new Pearl Harbor"
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
Ah, yes, they did the OPPOSITE of that.
You are obviously right, and I am obviously the "idiot", not you. Obviously.
After 9-11, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, did NOT use perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
That did not happen, according to you. Only dishonest conspiracy idiots think that is what happened.
The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
Yes, as if they knew they were commiting criminal acts and covering them up. Odd!
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
You don't even understand that a criminal will know in advance that he will need to cover his tracks. You call that "prescience". And you presume to lecture me on my way of thinking? Wow!
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
Such as business associates with investments in the same long-term endeavours who golf together often. You mean these people with no ties and no trust?
Seriously?
Explain to me where your assumption of no ties comes from. Then your assumption of distrust.
You take these assumptions as valid dismissal, you offer no proof, and yet you claim that the people you're contradicting are the ones without proof. Bravo.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
Presumes the man who's unable to understand that criminals foresee the need to destroy evidence prior to the start of an official investigation, and unable to understand that business partners have ties and reasons to trust each other (if one of them goes down, they all go down, they must watch each others back).
You seem to be making the claim that conspiracies are inherently impossible. Why would there be entriesd in criminal codes the world over mentioning "conspiracy to commit" if conspiracies were inherently impossible? I mean, the Nixon administration was not involved in a conspiracy against anyone ataying at the watergate hotel, and surely no one mentioned in the incriminating Nixon tapes was head of the Department of Defense at the time in which there couldn't possibly a conspiracy, right?
It's all make believe by nuts, huh?
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
You demonstrated nothing. You made ignorant comments to contradict me, but those were demonstrably invalid.
If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
That's true, if that's the case, why is there an entire industry devoted to "imploding " buildings? All you have to do is set fire to the joint and step back for a few hours, why waste millions paying professionals to spend time and explosives on accomplishing a result that will occur naturally without human intervention?
There must be a demoliition conspiracy, huh? All these shadowy people in hard hats, convincing the world that only their arcane arts can bring down a building on its own footprint in one smooth motion! Is that your theory?
BTW, I notice you're getting far far away from your primary dismissal: Lack of motive.
The motive is : Billions and billions of dollars, as well as a short-time absolute power while everyone is scared shitless.
Tell me, how could anyone not see the motive? Billions of dollars involved, and you can't see the motive. I don't know if if I find that more sad or more infuriating, to be surrounded by fools who can't see money as a motive for murder.
It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing
None is as blind as those who refuse to look.
Here's the crux of your argument: "I'm not convinced". It's an emotion, you're not approaching this honestly and rationally, you have an emotional investment in believing that the people who have the power of life and death over you aren't willi8ng to kill you for a buck, and so you rationalise away any evidence that they do.
This conspiracy theory has the usual problems of conspiracy theories, such as providing what mystery writers call "motive, means and opportunity".
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored. That evidence went up in smoke, these generous contributors to the Bush campaign went free.
For the whole attack, motive was outlined by the Project for a New American Century, featuring such obscure members as the vice president: One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." The report also states:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â" like a new Pearl Harbor"
As a result of the 9-11 events, the budget for the "intelligence community" (the same people telling you it was done by Ossama, and that there's a huge arsenal ready to strike in Iraq) has literally doubled since then. Money is a very common motive.
Motive is a particularly vexing issue, given that seven buildings were destroyed past recovery and numerous other ones damaged, it's hard to connect the end result to the purported motive.
Also, removing all that asbestos (which was no danger to breathe, according to your oh-so-trustworthy government) from those buildings was going to be one hell of a future expense.
Another commonsense question would be whether a government that could not keep Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Echelon, or warrantless surveillance under wraps could have engaged in what must have been a substantial engineering effort on three busy Manhattan buildings without anybody noticing.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance. Office people do not question men in hard hats drilling behind tarps. You see some workers doing work in your building, do you call the police?
Common sense is that when work is being done in a building, you bitch aboput the noise, you do not assume a terrorist conspiracy.
The real appeal of any conspiracy theory is this:
Ah. yes: arm chair psychology! Way to go. You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers, as they promtly did (funny how fast that USAPATRIOT ACT was written, huh?), but you can see into my soul! Very good.
Any why on earth is everyone thinking that "official sources" are the only things that news outlets use when reporting on big stories. They had reporters on the ground, phoning in information. They had other stringers on the ground, phoning in information. What the hell is this "official sources that they were quoting"
Whatch the fucking video, where they say that they DON'T have people on the ground because the area was cordonned off.
If you don't know what official sources are, do NOT discuss how news sources get their information, because you're only injecting your own ignorance in the discussion, noise, nothing but noise.
Official sources are people with an office that pertains to the mnaztter, such as the NY mayors' office, or the NY fire department. These offices have people who's job it is to relate to the media the information that the office wants to be made public. The reporters get in touch with these sources.
The fact that you have no idea that this is how it works, but you're discussing it with great conviction, says a lot about you.
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".
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force.
We should expect all "implosion" experts to be sued for their scamming all those building owners into believing that buildings don't fall like that on their own, huh?
It's the end of an entire niche of engineering firms! Oh noes! And in this bad economy too, what a shame.
he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."
Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
Which is why efforts to keep the damage to a minimum would point to an "inside job" conspiracy rather than a "bunch of guys in some desert cave" conspiracy. Duh.
Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.
Reefer was made illegal with these lies and is still illegal over 70 years later.
Backfire? What backfire? It accomplished its objectives and was replaced by a series of new bullshit as time went on (if you smoke a joint, you will SHOOT YOUR FRIEND IN THE FACE WITH A GUN!!!, etc).
i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic
Take off the blinders and look around, this is just one iteration of a pattern of behaviour with much greater impact on your life than the price of mp3s.
That attack on the public domain is systematic, and gets as bad as outlawing the collection of rain water after multiplying the utilities bill, and trying to force farmers to pay for a liscence to their newly gene-sequenced and now patented traditional crop. Or just skimping on security and gassing tens of thousands of people to death. These are real things corporations have done. Their one motive is profit, and people will kill for money if they think they won't get caught. And corporations are legal entities that can be legally blamed instead of their owners. A sort of "get out of jail for a large sum of money" card, since your stock obviously takes a dive after you kill so many people that it makes the news around the world.
You may not want to see it, but it is going on.
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few.
I see you have somehow marginalized all people who decry the crimes made by the rich as "a weird, deluded fiew". It's a shame that you've shoehorned yourself into such a reductionist view of the world. I fear these limitations you've built in your mind will make this conversation quite futile.
A corporation made the splint I'm wearing, and another brought it to their nice clean store within walking distance of my house, and I gladly paid the price for them. Corporations are not a good or a bad thing, they're just a thing. But they are being used by greedy people against the rest of humanity, and this power has to be removed from these few. Hence, the opposition to "corporations" as shorthand for the fight to remove the legal framework that makes corporations so dangerous to the well being of the people.
The internet takes the power of publishing to a worlwide audience away from the exclusive right of the very rich and into the hands of the middle class (the poor are too busy being hungry to publish). It gave power of the press to more people than ever. The media conglomerates are fighting back, trying to outlaw P2P, etc. The are your enemy if you wish to retain the rights that technology affords you.
And there are many other rights that a few, rich people are trying to keep out of your hands and into theirs, corporations are one of the tools they use for this. So it's not an idelogical battle against corporations, it's class warfare.
You have seen one, narrow example of this in one, specific topic. Broaden your horizons.
the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined.
No. The media conglomerates can do everything you can do on the internet, but you are limited to viewers who know on what adress to reach your data. The corporations can spend millions to not only host their data on a robust server capable of whithstanding the harshest slashdotting, but they can also pay for tv and radio and print distribution to inform anyone in contact with their targeted demographics of the location of their content.
It lets anyone be a publisher, and it allows greater than ever before, but it does not make the individual stronger than the many or the wealthy-as-many.
Sure they do, they spend so much on changing it to their liking! Lawmakers and lobbyists aren't cheap, you know. You should see their food budget, they cost hundreds of dollars per meal! And only in restaurants free or rats asses, or any other rat parts.
They care about the law as much as a slave owner cares about the whip.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
Ah, yes, they did the OPPOSITE of that.
You are obviously right, and I am obviously the "idiot", not you.
Obviously.
After 9-11, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, did NOT use perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
That did not happen, according to you. Only dishonest conspiracy idiots think that is what happened.
The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
Yes, as if they knew they were commiting criminal acts and covering them up. Odd!
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
You don't even understand that a criminal will know in advance that he will need to cover his tracks. You call that "prescience".
And you presume to lecture me on my way of thinking? Wow!
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
Such as business associates with investments in the same long-term endeavours who golf together often.
You mean these people with no ties and no trust?
Seriously?
Explain to me where your assumption of no ties comes from.
Then your assumption of distrust.
You take these assumptions as valid dismissal, you offer no proof, and yet you claim that the people you're contradicting are the ones without proof.
Bravo.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
Presumes the man who's unable to understand that criminals foresee the need to destroy evidence prior to the start of an official investigation, and unable to understand that business partners have ties and reasons to trust each other (if one of them goes down, they all go down, they must watch each others back).
You seem to be making the claim that conspiracies are inherently impossible. Why would there be entriesd in criminal codes the world over mentioning "conspiracy to commit" if conspiracies were inherently impossible?
I mean, the Nixon administration was not involved in a conspiracy against anyone ataying at the watergate hotel, and surely no one mentioned in the incriminating Nixon tapes was head of the Department of Defense at the time in which there couldn't possibly a conspiracy, right?
It's all make believe by nuts, huh?
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
You demonstrated nothing. You made ignorant comments to contradict me, but those were demonstrably invalid.
If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
That's true, if that's the case, why is there an entire industry devoted to "imploding " buildings?
All you have to do is set fire to the joint and step back for a few hours, why waste millions paying professionals to spend time and explosives on accomplishing a result that will occur naturally without human intervention?
There must be a demoliition conspiracy, huh? All these shadowy people in hard hats, convincing the world that only their arcane arts can bring down a building on its own footprint in one smooth motion! Is that your theory?
BTW, I notice you're getting far far away from your primary dismissal: Lack of motive.
The motive is : Billions and billions of dollars, as well as a short-time absolute power while everyone is scared shitless.
Tell me, how could anyone not see the motive? Billions of dollars involved, and you can't see the motive. I don't know if if I find that more sad or more infuriating, to be surrounded by fools who can't see money as a motive for murder.
It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing
None is as blind as those who refuse to look.
Here's the crux of your argument: "I'm not convinced". It's an emotion, you're not approaching this honestly and rationally, you have an emotional investment in believing that the people who have the power of life and death over you aren't willi8ng to kill you for a buck, and so you rationalise away any evidence that they do.
I work in the news industry.
And you had no idea what "official sources" meant.
Boy, you must be getting a kick out of these replies!
This conspiracy theory has the usual problems of conspiracy theories, such as providing what mystery writers call "motive, means and opportunity".
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That evidence went up in smoke, these generous contributors to the Bush campaign went free.
For the whole attack, motive was outlined by the Project for a New American Century, featuring such obscure members as the vice president: One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."
The report also states:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â" like a new Pearl Harbor"
As a result of the 9-11 events, the budget for the "intelligence community" (the same people telling you it was done by Ossama, and that there's a huge arsenal ready to strike in Iraq) has literally doubled since then.
Money is a very common motive.
Motive is a particularly vexing issue, given that seven buildings were destroyed past recovery and numerous other ones damaged, it's hard to connect the end result to the purported motive.
Also, removing all that asbestos (which was no danger to breathe, according to your oh-so-trustworthy government) from those buildings was going to be one hell of a future expense.
Another commonsense question would be whether a government that could not keep Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Echelon, or warrantless surveillance under wraps could have engaged in what must have been a substantial engineering effort on three busy Manhattan buildings without anybody noticing.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance.
Office people do not question men in hard hats drilling behind tarps.
You see some workers doing work in your building, do you call the police?
Common sense is that when work is being done in a building, you bitch aboput the noise, you do not assume a terrorist conspiracy.
The real appeal of any conspiracy theory is this:
Ah. yes: arm chair psychology! Way to go. You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers, as they promtly did (funny how fast that USAPATRIOT ACT was written, huh?), but you can see into my soul! Very good.
No part of that post constitute flamebait: someone's abusing mod points again!
Any why on earth is everyone thinking that "official sources" are the only things that news outlets use when reporting on big stories. They had reporters on the ground, phoning in information. They had other stringers on the ground, phoning in information. What the hell is this "official sources that they were quoting"
Whatch the fucking video, where they say that they DON'T have people on the ground because the area was cordonned off.
If you don't know what official sources are, do NOT discuss how news sources get their information, because you're only injecting your own ignorance in the discussion, noise, nothing but noise.
Official sources are people with an office that pertains to the mnaztter, such as the NY mayors' office, or the NY fire department.
These offices have people who's job it is to relate to the media the information that the office wants to be made public. The reporters get in touch with these sources.
The fact that you have no idea that this is how it works, but you're discussing it with great conviction, says a lot about you.
The difference being that that building was reinforced concrete stack, which is essentially monolithic.
If you say so...
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".
At the fire, the building had almost no spandrels at upper floors. The steel columns had almost no fire resistance covers at upper floors.
Too busy pointing out typos to check for truthiness?
the Silverstein part is incontrovertible
Semantics will take care of that: He meant something else! He was being ironic, that's all.
See, I controverted the hell out of it, no effort :)
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
Everyone knows the CIA hired the mob and anti-Communist Cuban militants to bring it down.
That was called OPERATION NORTHWOODS:
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
Because gravity pulls straight down? Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?
I expect it to fall away from its support structure.
Which way would you expect something to fall when "straight down" is already occupied?
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force.
We should expect all "implosion" experts to be sued for their scamming all those building owners into believing that buildings don't fall like that on their own, huh?
It's the end of an entire niche of engineering firms! Oh noes! And in this bad economy too, what a shame.
How many skyscrapers have people seen collapse which are NOT controlled demolitions?
A couple...
In other other words, how do you know that "falling straight down" is an artifact of controlled demolition, and not an artifact of being a skyscraper?
Now, what do you call the logical fallacy of relying on your own ignorance to prove a point?
Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a [fireproofed steel-core] building to collapse?
It sure surprised the editor in chief of Fire Engineering magazine, but what does HE know, huh?
he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."
No one ever expected a fire to burn out of control for several hours.
[citation needed]
On May 4 and 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to an extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the City's history. The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure. It was the high-rise fire that "you can't put out."
It took a total of 383 Department members to do the job. They fought the blaze for 3 hours and 39 minutes
Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey
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.
Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
Which is why efforts to keep the damage to a minimum would point to an "inside job" conspiracy rather than a "bunch of guys in some desert cave" conspiracy.
Duh.
Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.
That is simply not true.
You people and your crackpot theories, pfff.
The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down rather to one side or the other.
Crackpot theories were explicitely banned.
Otherwise, [citation needed]
it is a guaranteed backfire
i swear, it's reefer madness for file sharing
Reefer was made illegal with these lies and is still illegal over 70 years later.
Backfire? What backfire? It accomplished its objectives and was replaced by a series of new bullshit as time went on (if you smoke a joint, you will SHOOT YOUR FRIEND IN THE FACE WITH A GUN!!!, etc).
i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic
Take off the blinders and look around, this is just one iteration of a pattern of behaviour with much greater impact on your life than the price of mp3s.
That attack on the public domain is systematic, and gets as bad as outlawing the collection of rain water after multiplying the utilities bill, and trying to force farmers to pay for a liscence to their newly gene-sequenced and now patented traditional crop.
Or just skimping on security and gassing tens of thousands of people to death.
These are real things corporations have done. Their one motive is profit, and people will kill for money if they think they won't get caught.
And corporations are legal entities that can be legally blamed instead of their owners.
A sort of "get out of jail for a large sum of money" card, since your stock obviously takes a dive after you kill so many people that it makes the news around the world.
You may not want to see it, but it is going on.
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few.
I see you have somehow marginalized all people who decry the crimes made by the rich as "a weird, deluded fiew". It's a shame that you've shoehorned yourself into such a reductionist view of the world. I fear these limitations you've built in your mind will make this conversation quite futile.
A corporation made the splint I'm wearing, and another brought it to their nice clean store within walking distance of my house, and I gladly paid the price for them.
Corporations are not a good or a bad thing, they're just a thing. But they are being used by greedy people against the rest of humanity, and this power has to be removed from these few. Hence, the opposition to "corporations" as shorthand for the fight to remove the legal framework that makes corporations so dangerous to the well being of the people.
The internet takes the power of publishing to a worlwide audience away from the exclusive right of the very rich and into the hands of the middle class (the poor are too busy being hungry to publish). It gave power of the press to more people than ever.
The media conglomerates are fighting back, trying to outlaw P2P, etc.
The are your enemy if you wish to retain the rights that technology affords you.
And there are many other rights that a few, rich people are trying to keep out of your hands and into theirs, corporations are one of the tools they use for this. So it's not an idelogical battle against corporations, it's class warfare.
You have seen one, narrow example of this in one, specific topic. Broaden your horizons.
the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined.
No. The media conglomerates can do everything you can do on the internet, but you are limited to viewers who know on what adress to reach your data.
The corporations can spend millions to not only host their data on a robust server capable of whithstanding the harshest slashdotting, but they can also pay for tv and radio and print distribution to inform anyone in contact with their targeted demographics of the location of their content.
It lets anyone be a publisher, and it allows greater than ever before, but it does not make the individual stronger than the many or the wealthy-as-many.
Never underestimate your enemy.
These bozos don't give a rat's ass about the law.
Sure they do, they spend so much on changing it to their liking!
Lawmakers and lobbyists aren't cheap, you know. You should see their food budget, they cost hundreds of dollars per meal! And only in restaurants free or rats asses, or any other rat parts.
They care about the law as much as a slave owner cares about the whip.