While I have my own doubts about who contributed what to 9/11, two things I'm quite sure about is that buildings did not fall neatly in their own footprints and that the collapses looked nothing like a controlled demolitions. You know how? I watched the videos on the internets carefully.
I'll agree for WTC 1 & 2. But WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It really did just fall straight down.
If fires burn unchecked through a building for hours, then yes, that building will go down regardless of its construction.
That's not even close to correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid) The Windsor tower in Madrid burned for 24 hours across a good portion of the building, and it suffered only minor local collapses. The building remained standing.
...just how large an aircraft do you think would be required to destroy your home, if it were to crash into your home? Alright - how large a plane would be required to destroy your city hall? Your high school? Come on - THINK about it. Have you ever seen a mere 5-gallon can full of nothing but gasoline vapors explode? It's fucking DESTRUCTIVE, man! It will tear your goddamned HEAD OFF!
Now, imagine the explosive power in an automobile's gas tank - 10, 14, maybe 20 gallons of gasoline. Put that in your house. Ignite. Add a bottle or two of pure oxygen - remember, those high altitude aircraft come equipped with an oxygen source, large enough to supply all the people aboard, just in case.
Have you absorbed that yet? Fine - let's move on. How many gallons of aviation fuel did those jetliners carry? I don't even know - but I know damned well that even almost empty, they held more fuel than your family car - or an 18-wheeler.
Gosh, that all sounds pretty powerful. Since there is always the risk of a plane hitting the tallest buildings in a city, it seems it would have been prudent of the architects and engineers that designed the building to design it in such a way that it could withstand such an impact. I mean, that's the responsible thing to do.
Oh wait, they did do that! In fact, their design (tube within a tube) was so impressive, it was used on many other buildings after that. So your position is that the engineering on those buildings was so wrong that not only did the buildings not withstand the impacts, but they suffered complete collapse, falling all the way to the ground. Is that right? Can you back that up at all, or are you just speculating? I mean, if that could be demonstrated the NIST report probably would have included it. But it didn't.
You're talking about the same type of people who really believe the planes that hit the World Trade Center didn't hit the World Trade Center, or if they hit the World Trade Center they didn't have people on them, or if they had people on them they were controlled by robotic pods. And that this was just to somehow cover the REAL method of destruction which was extensive demolition charges in the buildings that no one ever noticed, because flying a plane into a building somehow wouldn't be enough to destroy it so there needed to be a REAL method of destruction that the planes somehow didn't provide.
Actually, flying a plane into a building is not enough to destroy it. Know how I know? There have been quite a number of incidents of planes crashing into buildings, and none of them have collapsed; except for on 9/11. There have been local collapses from aircraft damage, but not a complete, global, all-the-way-to-the-ground collapse. How exactly the Twin towers collapsed is not known, because the report from the NIST only analyzed what led up to the collapse, not the collapse itself. That is to say they explained what led to the collapse (inward bowing of exterior support columns), but not what caused the top ~20% of the building to crush the remaining ~80% all the way to the ground.
You're talking about the same people who really believe the people trapped above the impact floors weren't trapped, that the photos of them were falsified and took place on a set because the window sizes don't look right - which had nothing to do with the fact any first year photography or film student could tell you that zooming from 1/4 of a mile away will distort perspective.
Actually, there were a number of people who were above the impact floors who were not trapped. Apparently there was one emergency staircase, on the opposite side of the building from the impact, that was not blocked. They were able to walk down. I have seen them interviewed on TV. I'd pull up a citation, but it's hardly worth the effort, as you already know all you need to know.
It's a pathological desire to undermine anything that is believed by anyone. It's not healthy distrust, it's a creepy, nonsensical obsession with being the one, unique snowflake who sees things how they "really are".
Every little bit of information presented to them is disputed due to "inconsistencies" but their basic theories are routinely rewritten over the course of an argument. Their own truth isn't even stable, because they're not stable. Being in opposition to commonly-held beliefs is the only thing that sustains them, and they define themselves and reality solely based on that stance. Nothing else.
So, inconsistencies in the official account do not bother you, but inconsistent arguments from disparate Internet posters do? I can dig the latter. But shouldn't it matter that the NIST claim that WTC Building 7 experienced free-fall acceleration? How does the top of a building free-fall when there is a building under it? Or that the columns of the WTC could not have melted, and yet there were pools of molten metal under the rubble that burned for months after the attacks? See, for a theory to have credibility, it must match all the known facts and evidence. I can understand your not believing Internet posters when they are inconsistent. But what's your reasoning for believing the government when it is inconsistent?
I will not go there. is the only option. And that might mean not seeing any movies. The moment you are willing to accept whatever they trow at you, you have lost.
That's exactly right. These media companies seem to think we need them. We don't. Life was worth living before sound recordings and motion pictures, so I'm not too concerned. They have forgotten that they are there to serve us. If they can't do it profitably, then they shouldn't do it, and life will go on.
Ok, this is both an insightful and informative post. If people want to understand why the world is the way it is, this type of thing is a good place to start. The US military has been the enforcement arm of corporate America for a century if not longer. The wars and conflicts we have engaged in have had much more to do with that than with freedom, or liberty or human rights, or any of the other claptrap the media sell us.
And yes, Curunir_wolf, you are a crackpot. You are a crackpot because none of this dynamic is ever explained to the American people, and they will look at you like you are crazy if you try to explain it. They can't fathom that Brian Williams could be bullshitting them (whether he knows it or not). So they walk around with their heads up their asses about how their country actually operates on the world stage. Thanks for the links.
And this is why you're a girl in training and not a banker in training.
All sophisticated crimes are confidence tricks. How you dress is a significant indicator of potential.
"Meritocracy" rarely has substantive meaning: it is usually applied when someone without full understanding of a hierarchy fails to appreciate the full set of qualities required of an individual. For example, loyalty in business to an "Old Boys' Club", guaranteeing that personal friends will further each others' interests, is far more important than e.g. who got the highest grade in some stupid aptitude test or who managed to increase profitability most at their previous job.
But it's fortunate that we don't have meritocracy, because it's a euphemism for "might makes right".
So, it seems one is really deciding which criminal enterprise to become a member of.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any time you're involved with someone engaged in criminal enterprise, you should probably assume they're not exactly the most ethical person.
Yeah, I'd agree. Like the people who ran this little racket. Amirite?
Really? You would mod up someone who has absolutely no proof, has formed a jaded opinion off of various reports, nitpicking what they need to form their opinion, and then post it on slashdot on a news report that may kinda sorta support their crazy ass conspiracy?
Hmm.... I think I just came up with the internet conspiracy formula.... patent pending!!!
So, do you disagree that the dynamic he illustrates exists?
Another time i was pulled over for "driving on the median" and in the report it had said i was in the middle median (double yellow both sides) for over 300 ft. When in reality i had only had 2 wheels cross the double yellow line for less then 50 ft. I please not guilty in court, and asked for video evidence and claimed this was a lie. The judge ruled in cops favor, even though he was blatenly lying.
In my state, statements by police are considered facts. So if the police say you were in the median for 300 ft., you were. It is up to you to disprove that. Otherwise it stands as a fact. Pretty neat, eh? What could go wrong?
Thanks for that link. It's hard to know what to think these days. It seems almost everyone with information also has an agenda. Is it any wonder the American public is so mis/uninformed when the objective of so many is not to inform but to manipulate? My sig gets more true every day.
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
No, RTFA.
Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. "Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place," Osterreicher wrote, "we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?"
"We believe that the recovered video of the incident will show that officers acted outside of their authority, in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 and similar protections provided by Florida law," he wrote.
Haven't you figured it out? It doesn't have to be authorized for it to happen.
If they can get away with it without getting caught that is what authorizes it.
They'll stop at nothing, they'll operate in secret, and shit happens.
Yes, exactly, thank you. This is what makes the boy scout AC above sound so naive.
Good Lord, what a wall of text. Yes, collusion. The telecoms had to be given retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the government's request. https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/07/09 . Further, the 2008 FISA revision had to be enacted to make legal what the President had been ordering illegally.
But then, you already believe that the IC is full of evil liars and lawbreakers anyway, so why would they need to Stratfor to do their dirty work? Reading things like this article, and comments from people like you, make me seriously wonder why I even choose to serve my country every day.
When you keep secrets, people will assume the worst. I assume you work for some organization like the NSA, rather than one like the CIA. When you run covert, black ops, there is no guarantee the law will be followed. And if it isn't, no one of consequence will find out.
That's not the case, you can't just skip at a step. There are too many checks and balances. In fact there is an entire regulated, not politically appointment, government body that can walk in at any moment and request to see documentation relating to anything they wish and 'that's classified' is not a valid response, regardless of how sensitive it is.
Could you name that regulated, not politically appointment, government body that can walk in at any moment and request to see documentation relating to anything they wish, regardless of how sensitive it is? Because that sounds like complete bullshit.
IC agencies are bound by laws written specifically for them and if you even think about targeting a citizen you're dragged over the coals.
Sorry, but I just don't believe that anymore. I agree that the laws exist. But I do not believe they cannot be circumvented. If a project is "black" enough, the law is an obstacle not a restraint. The CIA has been caught doing illegal stuff countless times. We must assume that there is more that was never found out. The US government in general has shown lately that it doesn't care about the law. Why should a super secret organization be any different? After all, when no one outside your group knows what you are doing, how can they know you are breaking the law?
It would appear they have no access to the truely secret stuff. Which is not the same thing as the Government not having any secret stuff. It just means anonymous and wikileaks go after soft targets.
Or it means that the truly secret, heavy duty stuff is actually kept secret. People seem to have this notion that the truth will always come out, and that someone, somewhere will always spill the beans. It's just not true. The intelligence community can and does keep well guarded secrets; secrets that would be beyond shocking of they were disclosed.
...and the Intelligence Community is not authorized to collect on US Persons, except where allowed by law or authorized by a properly adjudicated warrant from a court of law. I know people on Slashdot don't like to believe this, and prefer to imagine that the sole purpose of the Intelligence Community is spying on our own citizens instead of, you know, doing the jobs they've been charged to do.
The intelligence community's job is to spy on anyone they consider spy-worthy. It is naive in the extreme to think that they are not spying on US citizens, or that they operate under the law. These are secret organizations that disclose their full dealings to no one. Sure, they're not authorized by Congress to do many of these things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that no one without a need to know is not told.
Seriously, how do you know what the intelligence community is up to? Based on what they tell you? Based on what the law says? You're adorable!
Slashdot Mirror
While I have my own doubts about who contributed what to 9/11, two things I'm quite sure about is that buildings did not fall neatly in their own footprints and that the collapses looked nothing like a controlled demolitions. You know how? I watched the videos on the internets carefully.
I'll agree for WTC 1 & 2. But WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It really did just fall straight down.
If fires burn unchecked through a building for hours, then yes, that building will go down regardless of its construction.
That's not even close to correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid) The Windsor tower in Madrid burned for 24 hours across a good portion of the building, and it suffered only minor local collapses. The building remained standing.
...just how large an aircraft do you think would be required to destroy your home, if it were to crash into your home? Alright - how large a plane would be required to destroy your city hall? Your high school? Come on - THINK about it. Have you ever seen a mere 5-gallon can full of nothing but gasoline vapors explode? It's fucking DESTRUCTIVE, man! It will tear your goddamned HEAD OFF!
Now, imagine the explosive power in an automobile's gas tank - 10, 14, maybe 20 gallons of gasoline. Put that in your house. Ignite. Add a bottle or two of pure oxygen - remember, those high altitude aircraft come equipped with an oxygen source, large enough to supply all the people aboard, just in case.
Have you absorbed that yet? Fine - let's move on. How many gallons of aviation fuel did those jetliners carry? I don't even know - but I know damned well that even almost empty, they held more fuel than your family car - or an 18-wheeler.
Gosh, that all sounds pretty powerful. Since there is always the risk of a plane hitting the tallest buildings in a city, it seems it would have been prudent of the architects and engineers that designed the building to design it in such a way that it could withstand such an impact. I mean, that's the responsible thing to do.
Oh wait, they did do that! In fact, their design (tube within a tube) was so impressive, it was used on many other buildings after that. So your position is that the engineering on those buildings was so wrong that not only did the buildings not withstand the impacts, but they suffered complete collapse, falling all the way to the ground. Is that right? Can you back that up at all, or are you just speculating? I mean, if that could be demonstrated the NIST report probably would have included it. But it didn't.
You're talking about the same type of people who really believe the planes that hit the World Trade Center didn't hit the World Trade Center, or if they hit the World Trade Center they didn't have people on them, or if they had people on them they were controlled by robotic pods. And that this was just to somehow cover the REAL method of destruction which was extensive demolition charges in the buildings that no one ever noticed, because flying a plane into a building somehow wouldn't be enough to destroy it so there needed to be a REAL method of destruction that the planes somehow didn't provide.
Actually, flying a plane into a building is not enough to destroy it. Know how I know? There have been quite a number of incidents of planes crashing into buildings, and none of them have collapsed; except for on 9/11. There have been local collapses from aircraft damage, but not a complete, global, all-the-way-to-the-ground collapse. How exactly the Twin towers collapsed is not known, because the report from the NIST only analyzed what led up to the collapse, not the collapse itself. That is to say they explained what led to the collapse (inward bowing of exterior support columns), but not what caused the top ~20% of the building to crush the remaining ~80% all the way to the ground.
You're talking about the same people who really believe the people trapped above the impact floors weren't trapped, that the photos of them were falsified and took place on a set because the window sizes don't look right - which had nothing to do with the fact any first year photography or film student could tell you that zooming from 1/4 of a mile away will distort perspective.
Actually, there were a number of people who were above the impact floors who were not trapped. Apparently there was one emergency staircase, on the opposite side of the building from the impact, that was not blocked. They were able to walk down. I have seen them interviewed on TV. I'd pull up a citation, but it's hardly worth the effort, as you already know all you need to know.
It's a pathological desire to undermine anything that is believed by anyone. It's not healthy distrust, it's a creepy, nonsensical obsession with being the one, unique snowflake who sees things how they "really are".
Every little bit of information presented to them is disputed due to "inconsistencies" but their basic theories are routinely rewritten over the course of an argument. Their own truth isn't even stable, because they're not stable. Being in opposition to commonly-held beliefs is the only thing that sustains them, and they define themselves and reality solely based on that stance. Nothing else.
So, inconsistencies in the official account do not bother you, but inconsistent arguments from disparate Internet posters do? I can dig the latter. But shouldn't it matter that the NIST claim that WTC Building 7 experienced free-fall acceleration? How does the top of a building free-fall when there is a building under it? Or that the columns of the WTC could not have melted, and yet there were pools of molten metal under the rubble that burned for months after the attacks? See, for a theory to have credibility, it must match all the known facts and evidence. I can understand your not believing Internet posters when they are inconsistent. But what's your reasoning for believing the government when it is inconsistent?
I will not go there. is the only option. And that might mean not seeing any movies. The moment you are willing to accept whatever they trow at you, you have lost.
That's exactly right. These media companies seem to think we need them. We don't. Life was worth living before sound recordings and motion pictures, so I'm not too concerned. They have forgotten that they are there to serve us. If they can't do it profitably, then they shouldn't do it, and life will go on.
Yea, I can't imagine why terrorists wouldn't want to target a place where a lot of people are forced to bottle neck....like a security checkpoint....
I mean, nobody would give a shit if a few hundred people got blown up waiting to take their shoes off and walk though a body scanner right?
Quite right. This is one of many pieces of evidence that there is no terrorist threat.
Ok, this is both an insightful and informative post. If people want to understand why the world is the way it is, this type of thing is a good place to start. The US military has been the enforcement arm of corporate America for a century if not longer. The wars and conflicts we have engaged in have had much more to do with that than with freedom, or liberty or human rights, or any of the other claptrap the media sell us.
And yes, Curunir_wolf, you are a crackpot. You are a crackpot because none of this dynamic is ever explained to the American people, and they will look at you like you are crazy if you try to explain it. They can't fathom that Brian Williams could be bullshitting them (whether he knows it or not). So they walk around with their heads up their asses about how their country actually operates on the world stage. Thanks for the links.
Sorry to break it to you, but globalization has nothing to do with lifting people out of poverty.
And this is why you're a girl in training and not a banker in training.
All sophisticated crimes are confidence tricks. How you dress is a significant indicator of potential.
"Meritocracy" rarely has substantive meaning: it is usually applied when someone without full understanding of a hierarchy fails to appreciate the full set of qualities required of an individual. For example, loyalty in business to an "Old Boys' Club", guaranteeing that personal friends will further each others' interests, is far more important than e.g. who got the highest grade in some stupid aptitude test or who managed to increase profitability most at their previous job.
But it's fortunate that we don't have meritocracy, because it's a euphemism for "might makes right".
So, it seems one is really deciding which criminal enterprise to become a member of.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any time you're involved with someone engaged in criminal enterprise, you should probably assume they're not exactly the most ethical person.
Yeah, I'd agree. Like the people who ran this little racket. Amirite?
Really? You would mod up someone who has absolutely no proof, has formed a jaded opinion off of various reports, nitpicking what they need to form their opinion, and then post it on slashdot on a news report that may kinda sorta support their crazy ass conspiracy? Hmm.... I think I just came up with the internet conspiracy formula.... patent pending!!!
So, do you disagree that the dynamic he illustrates exists?
Another time i was pulled over for "driving on the median" and in the report it had said i was in the middle median (double yellow both sides) for over 300 ft. When in reality i had only had 2 wheels cross the double yellow line for less then 50 ft. I please not guilty in court, and asked for video evidence and claimed this was a lie. The judge ruled in cops favor, even though he was blatenly lying.
In my state, statements by police are considered facts. So if the police say you were in the median for 300 ft., you were. It is up to you to disprove that. Otherwise it stands as a fact. Pretty neat, eh? What could go wrong?
Thanks for that link. It's hard to know what to think these days. It seems almost everyone with information also has an agenda. Is it any wonder the American public is so mis/uninformed when the objective of so many is not to inform but to manipulate? My sig gets more true every day.
As I understand it, the rooster came first. Sometimes he's just selfish like that!
But "harvesting unborn babies" sounds so much more diabolical!
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
No, RTFA.
Haven't you figured it out? It doesn't have to be authorized for it to happen. If they can get away with it without getting caught that is what authorizes it.
They'll stop at nothing, they'll operate in secret, and shit happens.
Yes, exactly, thank you. This is what makes the boy scout AC above sound so naive.
Good Lord, what a wall of text. Yes, collusion. The telecoms had to be given retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the government's request. https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/07/09 . Further, the 2008 FISA revision had to be enacted to make legal what the President had been ordering illegally.
But then, you already believe that the IC is full of evil liars and lawbreakers anyway, so why would they need to Stratfor to do their dirty work? Reading things like this article, and comments from people like you, make me seriously wonder why I even choose to serve my country every day.
When you keep secrets, people will assume the worst. I assume you work for some organization like the NSA, rather than one like the CIA. When you run covert, black ops, there is no guarantee the law will be followed. And if it isn't, no one of consequence will find out.
That's not the case, you can't just skip at a step. There are too many checks and balances. In fact there is an entire regulated, not politically appointment, government body that can walk in at any moment and request to see documentation relating to anything they wish and 'that's classified' is not a valid response, regardless of how sensitive it is.
Could you name that regulated, not politically appointment, government body that can walk in at any moment and request to see documentation relating to anything they wish, regardless of how sensitive it is? Because that sounds like complete bullshit.
IC agencies are bound by laws written specifically for them and if you even think about targeting a citizen you're dragged over the coals.
Sorry, but I just don't believe that anymore. I agree that the laws exist. But I do not believe they cannot be circumvented. If a project is "black" enough, the law is an obstacle not a restraint. The CIA has been caught doing illegal stuff countless times. We must assume that there is more that was never found out. The US government in general has shown lately that it doesn't care about the law. Why should a super secret organization be any different? After all, when no one outside your group knows what you are doing, how can they know you are breaking the law?
It would appear they have no access to the truely secret stuff. Which is not the same thing as the Government not having any secret stuff. It just means anonymous and wikileaks go after soft targets.
Or it means that the truly secret, heavy duty stuff is actually kept secret. People seem to have this notion that the truth will always come out, and that someone, somewhere will always spill the beans. It's just not true. The intelligence community can and does keep well guarded secrets; secrets that would be beyond shocking of they were disclosed.
...and the Intelligence Community is not authorized to collect on US Persons, except where allowed by law or authorized by a properly adjudicated warrant from a court of law. I know people on Slashdot don't like to believe this, and prefer to imagine that the sole purpose of the Intelligence Community is spying on our own citizens instead of, you know, doing the jobs they've been charged to do.
The intelligence community's job is to spy on anyone they consider spy-worthy. It is naive in the extreme to think that they are not spying on US citizens, or that they operate under the law. These are secret organizations that disclose their full dealings to no one. Sure, they're not authorized by Congress to do many of these things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that no one without a need to know is not told.
Seriously, how do you know what the intelligence community is up to? Based on what they tell you? Based on what the law says? You're adorable!
A friend of mine used to install Seti@home as a service on all of his corporate desktops. The whole company was running Seti@home and didn't know it!
PSA, because I have seen this countless times: Whining has only one "g" in it.