Some people with dark skin who lived in a certain antebellum representative democracy would like to have a talk with you.
We weren't really a representative democracy at that point since large segments of the population couldn't even vote. "Constitutional Republic" is the accepted term so far as I know.
In the meantime, remember that we inherited most of our law from England, which had a legislature when we broke from them.
A legislature that the king can and did dissolve at will. After a few rounds of this the legislature enters a state of learned helplessness, assuming a powerful sovereign. Plus, only nobles were allowed to be members of the upper house; the House of Commons was not nearly as powerful back then (and the name was deceptive; few actually had the right to vote). The UK is not now and never has been a democracy, which was my original point.
I was responding to a very broad, extreme argument that sovereign immunity and state secrets are somehow anathema to democracy per se, despite the fact that they have historically been a part of pretty much every government I've ever seen or heard of.
That's because they are anathema. We are not a democracy. At this point, I wouldn't even call America a constitutional republic. We are an oligarchy. We don't respect our own Constitution and freely ignore it when it gets in the way of precioussss state secrets.
Of course, I don't believe we should even have a standing army, let alone an NSA, Federal Reserve or CIA outside the full jurisdiction of Congress.
As far as actually respecting the Constitution our framers gave us, you'll find me slightly to the right of Antonin Scalia.
Ah, well that explains a lot. Those dark-skinned folks who were originally worth 3/5ths of a person would like to talk with you.
I guess you'll find me to the left of Thomas Jefferson, but we don't live in Jefferson's Republic. We live in Scalia's Oligarchy.
But the democracy you envision is crippled, weak, and ineffective. A crippled, weak, and ineffective democracy will fail, just as surely as an over-reaching, oppressive, dictatorial democracy.
You are contradicting yourself. A "oppressive, dictatorial democracy" is not a democracy at all; it's a totalitarian state masquerading as a democracy for PR purposes. You know, like North Korea, or ahem, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)".
And we've always had sovereign immunity. We inherited it from other democracies.
Again, no. We did not inherit from "other democracies" because democracies do not have such laws. We inherited this law from a monarchy, which itself stole the idea from the Pope. The "Sovereign" in question was the pope or king before the idea was expanded to include the whole government.
I don't think we have to put our military secrets up on Facebook to be a more transparent and democratic country. But the very basis of our Constitution is the idea that the government is not above the law. After all the Constitution is a list of things that government can't do, or must do, not a list of things the citizens can't do. We were created equal and free, remember?
If you have problems with the philosophy of freedom our forefather's embraced, might I suggest that you move to a different country? This country is for people who want to continue the democratic experiment. If that frightens you, why not move to the UK.... or the DPRK?
Actually, the idea behind representational constitutional republicanism was to make it harder for this sort of thing to happen. The idea was that the mob would be easier to manipulate than a few respected individuals. In practice, both groups are easily manipulated.
Thank you for this insightful and interesting comment! I didn't know Rockefeller was involved with prohibition, but it makes perfect sense.
My only quibble is your spelling of William Randolph Hearst's name. And yes, he was the Rockefeller of cannabis prohibition. Great linked blog post too! thx
You are so naive. It's cute. But also a little sad.
The problem is that you were listening to the sellout half of Woodward & Bernstein. His former partner Carl Bernstein wrote an article about the CIA's infiltration of the mainstream media (it's called Operation Mockingbird and it's no conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact) and was never heard from in the MSM again.
So, tell me again how my "type" is silenced again?
It's not just about ratings. The real reason news sucks so bad is far more insidious. The oligarchy uses the media to maintain their control over us. No matter how stupid they look doing it.
Pop quiz, everybody: What's the difference between America and every other brutually oppressive empire that has ever stained the earth?
This must be the obligatory "I hate Comcast" thread. Well guess what, just like everyone else in the known universe I HATE COMCAST!! Those lying fuckers deserve to go the way of the dinosaur. Here's my story:
Why does Comcast suck? Oh, I'm glad you asked; let me explain. Long ago, in a time known as 2005, things were good. I had a fast internet connection through Time-Warner. It was about 6 Mbps and it set me back about 43 bucks a month.
Then, I get a letter informing me that Comcast swapped all of Time-Warner's Minnesota subscribers (like me) and that I would now be a Comcast customer. Okay, this is where the creepy, ominous music kicks in.
The letter makes clear that there will be no price adjustments. In fact the FAQ is still online, which says exactly:
Will my monthly fee change with Comcast High-Speed Internet?
Price adjustments will not be required because of this change. All prices reflect the increased value of our service, new product enhancements, and investments to continually improve the quality of our network and customer service. Any price adjustments going forward will be planned and communicated to customers well in advance of any change.
You can see where this is headed, can't you?
"Price adjustments will not be required" -- weasel words, if I've ever read them. Fucking liars. Despite the promises, both of stable prices and advanced notice, it turns out that Comcast is run by a bunch of lying, thieving scumbags who exist only to squeeze every last dime out of their unwilling customer base in order to fatten their own undeserved bonuses at the end of the year -- you know the bonuses, I'm talking about. They're 10 times the size of their average employee's yearly salary.
I must say that every Comcast employee I dealt with -- 3 customer service reps and a technician who picked up my modem -- were great. Fine folks, didn't lie to me any more, and were very apologetic. But the fact remains that they work for fascist goons who are planning to rape, pillage and plunder this fresh, unearned subscriber base in an apparent effort to show just how stupid and short-sighted management teams can be. They're going for the gold medal in poor decision-making skills. Bravo.
So, do I even have to tell you what happened? Isn't it obvious from my venom? Well, I'll tell you anyway. Comcast sent me a notice, dated December 26th (yes, the day after Christmas -- "Happy holidays from Comcast! Fuck you!") informing me that my rates were going up to 60 bucks a month -- plus modem rental (3 bucks a month), starting.... February 1st! Yay!
So the lying fuckers tried to squeeze me for 20 bucks more a month and gave me only a month notice. This left me no choice. I wasn't going to stand for this shit. 20 bucks isn't much, but 20 bucks every month adds up to quite a lot. It's almost $250 more per year. I am not that rich, Comcast. But idiotic, greedy ploys like this explain how they can afford to pay their CEO 27.8 million dollars a year. I guess I know where my $250 would've went.
And so, instead of sending them a check for 40-some bucks a month they managed to convince me to send them a whole lot of nothing every month. Congrats, Comcast. Your short-sighted greed and stupidity has only managed to cost you subscribers like me. Fucking morons.
Instead of collecting money from people like me, Comcast managed to piss away subscribers like a drunk after a night of drinking cheap domestic beer. Instead of getting my money every month they've assured Qwest of my business instead. Bravo, fuckheads!
Check out MNspeak for an awesome thread full of pissed off former subscribers. Comcast's goose-stepping management team deserves an award for monumental stupidity. It's hard to motivate internet-addicted people like me to do without and overcome the inertia required to make the switch. But Comcast managed to fi
There are many reasons why pot is illegal, including it's perception-shaping abilities. But at the end of the day it all comes down to dirty politics, and what agency is more synonymous with "dirty" than the CIA? The whole drug war is convenient way for the CIA to raise money for their black ops without having to go to Congress.
The government knows damn well that cannabis is not harmful; they don't care. Criminal hypocrisy is embedded into our government to the point that there's no way to end the drug war without ending the government with it (because of the truths that would be revealed). A perfect example is Afghanistan. Look at the numbers and tell me which government was really anti-poppy, the Taliban or the US gov's puppet regime. Under Karzai the heroin yields have never been higher.
It's all a scam. The DEA and local PDs put people in jail for decades for nonviolent drug offenses while the CIA takes a cut from drug smugglers in exchange for protection. Drug money is laundered through US businesses on Wall Street and elsewhere using CIA front companies. If you don't know about Iran-Contra, Barry Seal or Gary Webb I urge you to dig deeper. Things are not what they seem and ignorance of the crimes of traitors will slowly poison what's left of our republic.
One is that the Democrats are completely in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy and have no intention of standing up to the Cheney Regime ever because there is no real difference between the two parties and because they share a goal of world domination and fascism. This would be cause for revolution.
The second possibility is explained by this video of Ralph Nader talking about impeachment. He says, essentially, that the Democrats are afraid that if they begin impeachment proceedings Bush will attack Iran, declare a state of emergency, institute martial law, suspend the Constitution and refuse to hold the 2008 elections. This would be cause for revolution.
Hey, I couldn't help but notice you are a fellow MN band. That's freakin' sweet; my band is based in MN too. I also see you're playing Station-4 soon. We're playing it on the 16th of this month. Check us out, we're called Darkfold and we're always looking for a chance to play. So if you need another band to round out a bill feel free to contact us.
I think we will be taking a similar self-released route for our album. I'm sure we won't get radiohead-sized numbers, but I'd like to get it to as many people as possible. I think bittorrent might be the ideal solution, but making money that way seems impossible. Touring would be a great way to make money, but we have dayjobs and nobody knows who we are. It's basically a Catch-22 for bands unwilling to sign to a label. I hope somebody comes up with a brilliant way to shine some light on all the great unknown bands out there. I happen to know there are a shitload of incredible bands in Minnesota that nobody knows about. Not only does it suck for the unknown bands it also sucks for all their potential fans out there who are missing out on all that great music.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that mastering engineers are using their eyes, not their ears. It's so easy to look at the waveform on the screen and say, "well, it looks a bit low here. I can actually see the background color" when they should be listening with their eyes closed.
I plan to buck this trend with my band's CD. It will be compressed, but not to the point of mush. I hope we don't suffer for the idea that dynamics are good.
Well, I think the progressive collapse theory is bullshit, but why don't you go ahead and explain how a 110 story building can collapse in 8.6 seconds without CD. If you think he's misrepresenting your theory, by all means, prove otherwise. But NIST had to fudge their simulations to get it to work so I don't think you'll do any better. Please let me know if you do, though.
Also, I'd be interested to know why it took so long to collapse after impact.
As you replied a mere 4 minutes after my post I can only assume that you are totally full of shit and didn't even bother to check either link (and you got your numbers wrong).
"But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?" Torin asks rhetorically. "Fire." The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, "When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support." The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, "There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse"
A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. "The biggest problem with the argument," Torin explains. "Time."
Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. "The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds." How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.
"For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores." Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."
(Actually, my link says it was 8.6 seconds for WTC2. And he says a progressive collapse would be closer to 43 seconds, so I was being quite conservative with those numbers.)
Blah blah blah. You have nothing more than insults and dismissive waves of your hand anytime you're confronted with something you can't explain away logically.
You still haven't accounted for how WTC1 & 2 collapsed in less than 10 seconds. If a progressive collapse was the case it would've taken closer to 25 seconds, or more. You don't seem to like to discuss this part. In fact, your whole post is a gigantic dance around the issue. You talk about Dick Cheney, moon landings and Area 51 because you can't refute the observed truth.
Then you have the gall to accuse me of being a nutjob. Somebody here is ignoring reality, but it isn't me.
Oh, btw, I live in Minnesota and I can be quite certain that Dick Cheney had nothing to do with the bridge. You know how I know? Because he's not using the collapse as a pretext to invade other countries and "fix their bridges for them" or whatever bullshit excuse got us into Iraq. But then, you probably fell for that lie.
Your explanation is pure fantasy. It makes no sense and would never happen in the real world, at least a world with physics similar to ours.
And the moment that mass becomes poorly loaded across the entire structure, the stress weakens the entire structure.
What the heck are you talking about? No, certain trusses are absorbing more stress than others. The overall structure is weakened, but some points more than others.
The impact from the mass overhead buckles the floors below, and down she goes... getting more and more "straight down" with every inch it travels.
The pancake theory is fantasy. The structure collapsed in less than 10 seconds. As the linked article in my earlier post makes clear a pancake collapse would take much longer. Also, how would it get more and more straight down with every inch it travels down? It encounters resistance if the lower structure is still in place, and that resistance would cause the weight of the upper floors to tumble in other directions, just like a rock rolls down a mountain. That is NOT what was observed on 9/11. The whole thing folded like a house of cards. Twice. Then WTC7 collapsed for no apparent reason ("fire" my ass).
I suggest you read up on Steven E. Jones and what he has to say about the collapses.
How did a plane that crashed around the 80th floor manage to soften the steel throughout the entire building, from below the 1st floor to the 110th floor? Wouldn't a progressive softening of the steel, especially concentrated on one side of the building, cause the building to tip over sideways rather than fall neatly into its own footprint?
Nice of you to ignore his first link -- you know, the one that was 2 months before 9/11, while Osama was wanted for the bombing of the U.S. Cole and other crimes.
I don't think the CIA would have to be psychic to know what was about to go down. Google "Tim Osman" if you want to learn more about bin Laden's CIA-linked activities.
But, but... but... what if some ignorant American calls you a "conspiracy theorist" for being able to see through the lies? How will you sleep at night?!
For anybody who doesn't know what fantomas is alluding to in the post above, I urge you to download and watch the excellent BBC program The Power of Nightmares. It turns out that if you actually look closely at al Qaeda the whole thing unravels. OBL and Zawahiri are a bunch of losers, complete phonies and probably employed by the CIA and/or MI6.
Everybody knows Bin Laden worked for the CIA (through the Pakistani ISI proxy) during the 80's during the fight against the Soviets. Nobody seems to know when he stopped working for them..... IF he stopped working for them.
As a former US Marine I so often get discouraged by the hatred so many Americans have fostered for their country.
Hatred? I hate what America has become, not what it once was and what it once stood for. I have only hatred for those who have tried to poison the well of democracy and usurp liberty. I love my country, and fuck you for implying otherwise. I don't give a damn if you were a Marine; you have apparently failed in your duty to protect the Constitution. You'd rather defend the status quo. The two are not the same.
Like a lot of military men you have an idealized, movie-inspired view of reality. Do you really think that all of the "bad guys" are "over there"? Do you really think every evil person is clearly labelled by his swarthy complection and his turban? The truth is much more insidious and horrifying.
The truth is that powerful men in our country are often much more interested in power than democracy. The most powerful and terrifying enemy we face today is not al-Qaeda or any other mythical terrorist group. No the enemy was born here, was raised here, is mostly white, mostly Christian and looks and acts just like the rest of us. They are the very people we look to for guidance: Our leaders.
If a corporation allows the government to control it, it can get access to the population and thereby have some influence. If the corporation doesn't allow the government to control it, it will ether be shut down or shut out.
That's why the corporations decided to buy the government. They picked the first choice and then infiltrated the government... gradually a heirarchy -- an Oligarchy -- developed as people went back and forth between government and the private sector. The Oligarchy was forged as rich men learned to scratch each other's back, even if it meant screwing over the public. In time, hidden groups formed, old groups changed and factions struggled for dominance behind the scenes. Our rulers (the real ones, not the puppets they put in front of you) long ago decided to control the public. Control of the internet is a logical extension of that desire for control.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people with dark skin who lived in a certain antebellum representative democracy would like to have a talk with you.
We weren't really a representative democracy at that point since large segments of the population couldn't even vote. "Constitutional Republic" is the accepted term so far as I know.
In the meantime, remember that we inherited most of our law from England, which had a legislature when we broke from them.
A legislature that the king can and did dissolve at will. After a few rounds of this the legislature enters a state of learned helplessness, assuming a powerful sovereign. Plus, only nobles were allowed to be members of the upper house; the House of Commons was not nearly as powerful back then (and the name was deceptive; few actually had the right to vote). The UK is not now and never has been a democracy, which was my original point.
I was responding to a very broad, extreme argument that sovereign immunity and state secrets are somehow anathema to democracy per se, despite the fact that they have historically been a part of pretty much every government I've ever seen or heard of.
That's because they are anathema. We are not a democracy. At this point, I wouldn't even call America a constitutional republic. We are an oligarchy. We don't respect our own Constitution and freely ignore it when it gets in the way of precioussss state secrets.
Of course, I don't believe we should even have a standing army, let alone an NSA, Federal Reserve or CIA outside the full jurisdiction of Congress.
As far as actually respecting the Constitution our framers gave us, you'll find me slightly to the right of Antonin Scalia.
Ah, well that explains a lot. Those dark-skinned folks who were originally worth 3/5ths of a person would like to talk with you.
I guess you'll find me to the left of Thomas Jefferson, but we don't live in Jefferson's Republic. We live in Scalia's Oligarchy.
But the democracy you envision is crippled, weak, and ineffective. A crippled, weak, and ineffective democracy will fail, just as surely as an over-reaching, oppressive, dictatorial democracy.
You are contradicting yourself. A "oppressive, dictatorial democracy" is not a democracy at all; it's a totalitarian state masquerading as a democracy for PR purposes. You know, like North Korea, or ahem, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)".
And we've always had sovereign immunity. We inherited it from other democracies.
Again, no. We did not inherit from "other democracies" because democracies do not have such laws. We inherited this law from a monarchy, which itself stole the idea from the Pope. The "Sovereign" in question was the pope or king before the idea was expanded to include the whole government.
I don't think we have to put our military secrets up on Facebook to be a more transparent and democratic country. But the very basis of our Constitution is the idea that the government is not above the law. After all the Constitution is a list of things that government can't do, or must do, not a list of things the citizens can't do. We were created equal and free, remember?
If you have problems with the philosophy of freedom our forefather's embraced, might I suggest that you move to a different country? This country is for people who want to continue the democratic experiment. If that frightens you, why not move to the UK.... or the DPRK?
Actually, the idea behind representational constitutional republicanism was to make it harder for this sort of thing to happen. The idea was that the mob would be easier to manipulate than a few respected individuals. In practice, both groups are easily manipulated.
Votes in favor of Oligarchical Corporatism: 67
It's ironic that democracy can be voted away so quickly and easily.
My only quibble is your spelling of William Randolph Hearst's name. And yes, he was the Rockefeller of cannabis prohibition. Great linked blog post too! thx
The problem is that you were listening to the sellout half of Woodward & Bernstein. His former partner Carl Bernstein wrote an article about the CIA's infiltration of the mainstream media (it's called Operation Mockingbird and it's no conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact) and was never heard from in the MSM again.
So, tell me again how my "type" is silenced again?
It's not just about ratings. The real reason news sucks so bad is far more insidious. The oligarchy uses the media to maintain their control over us. No matter how stupid they look doing it.
Pop quiz, everybody: What's the difference between America and every other brutually oppressive empire that has ever stained the earth?
Answer: America has better PR.
Why does Comcast suck? Oh, I'm glad you asked; let me explain. Long ago, in a time known as 2005, things were good. I had a fast internet connection through Time-Warner. It was about 6 Mbps and it set me back about 43 bucks a month.
Then, I get a letter informing me that Comcast swapped all of Time-Warner's Minnesota subscribers (like me) and that I would now be a Comcast customer. Okay, this is where the creepy, ominous music kicks in.
The letter makes clear that there will be no price adjustments. In fact the FAQ is still online, which says exactly:
You can see where this is headed, can't you?
"Price adjustments will not be required" -- weasel words, if I've ever read them. Fucking liars. Despite the promises, both of stable prices and advanced notice, it turns out that Comcast is run by a bunch of lying, thieving scumbags who exist only to squeeze every last dime out of their unwilling customer base in order to fatten their own undeserved bonuses at the end of the year -- you know the bonuses, I'm talking about. They're 10 times the size of their average employee's yearly salary.
I must say that every Comcast employee I dealt with -- 3 customer service reps and a technician who picked up my modem -- were great. Fine folks, didn't lie to me any more, and were very apologetic. But the fact remains that they work for fascist goons who are planning to rape, pillage and plunder this fresh, unearned subscriber base in an apparent effort to show just how stupid and short-sighted management teams can be. They're going for the gold medal in poor decision-making skills. Bravo.
So, do I even have to tell you what happened? Isn't it obvious from my venom? Well, I'll tell you anyway. Comcast sent me a notice, dated December 26th (yes, the day after Christmas -- "Happy holidays from Comcast! Fuck you!") informing me that my rates were going up to 60 bucks a month -- plus modem rental (3 bucks a month), starting.... February 1st! Yay!
So the lying fuckers tried to squeeze me for 20 bucks more a month and gave me only a month notice. This left me no choice. I wasn't going to stand for this shit. 20 bucks isn't much, but 20 bucks every month adds up to quite a lot. It's almost $250 more per year. I am not that rich, Comcast. But idiotic, greedy ploys like this explain how they can afford to pay their CEO 27.8 million dollars a year. I guess I know where my $250 would've went.
And so, instead of sending them a check for 40-some bucks a month they managed to convince me to send them a whole lot of nothing every month. Congrats, Comcast. Your short-sighted greed and stupidity has only managed to cost you subscribers like me. Fucking morons.
Instead of collecting money from people like me, Comcast managed to piss away subscribers like a drunk after a night of drinking cheap domestic beer. Instead of getting my money every month they've assured Qwest of my business instead. Bravo, fuckheads!
Check out MNspeak for an awesome thread full of pissed off former subscribers. Comcast's goose-stepping management team deserves an award for monumental stupidity. It's hard to motivate internet-addicted people like me to do without and overcome the inertia required to make the switch. But Comcast managed to fi
The government knows damn well that cannabis is not harmful; they don't care. Criminal hypocrisy is embedded into our government to the point that there's no way to end the drug war without ending the government with it (because of the truths that would be revealed). A perfect example is Afghanistan. Look at the numbers and tell me which government was really anti-poppy, the Taliban or the US gov's puppet regime. Under Karzai the heroin yields have never been higher.
It's all a scam. The DEA and local PDs put people in jail for decades for nonviolent drug offenses while the CIA takes a cut from drug smugglers in exchange for protection. Drug money is laundered through US businesses on Wall Street and elsewhere using CIA front companies. If you don't know about Iran-Contra, Barry Seal or Gary Webb I urge you to dig deeper. Things are not what they seem and ignorance of the crimes of traitors will slowly poison what's left of our republic.
One is that the Democrats are completely in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy and have no intention of standing up to the Cheney Regime ever because there is no real difference between the two parties and because they share a goal of world domination and fascism. This would be cause for revolution.
The second possibility is explained by this video of Ralph Nader talking about impeachment. He says, essentially, that the Democrats are afraid that if they begin impeachment proceedings Bush will attack Iran, declare a state of emergency, institute martial law, suspend the Constitution and refuse to hold the 2008 elections. This would be cause for revolution.
Either way, we're in deep shit.
I think we will be taking a similar self-released route for our album. I'm sure we won't get radiohead-sized numbers, but I'd like to get it to as many people as possible. I think bittorrent might be the ideal solution, but making money that way seems impossible. Touring would be a great way to make money, but we have dayjobs and nobody knows who we are. It's basically a Catch-22 for bands unwilling to sign to a label. I hope somebody comes up with a brilliant way to shine some light on all the great unknown bands out there. I happen to know there are a shitload of incredible bands in Minnesota that nobody knows about. Not only does it suck for the unknown bands it also sucks for all their potential fans out there who are missing out on all that great music.
I plan to buck this trend with my band's CD. It will be compressed, but not to the point of mush. I hope we don't suffer for the idea that dynamics are good.
Also, I'd be interested to know why it took so long to collapse after impact.
The ScentCone method, hard at work!
Here, let me hold your hand, little boy:
Hell, I'll even throw in another one for good measure. Where's your evidence?
Until you can prove you did that I would be wasting my time. I've played this game before.
What do you base your claim on?
(Actually, my link says it was 8.6 seconds for WTC2. And he says a progressive collapse would be closer to 43 seconds, so I was being quite conservative with those numbers.)
You still haven't accounted for how WTC1 & 2 collapsed in less than 10 seconds. If a progressive collapse was the case it would've taken closer to 25 seconds, or more. You don't seem to like to discuss this part. In fact, your whole post is a gigantic dance around the issue. You talk about Dick Cheney, moon landings and Area 51 because you can't refute the observed truth.
Then you have the gall to accuse me of being a nutjob. Somebody here is ignoring reality, but it isn't me.
Oh, btw, I live in Minnesota and I can be quite certain that Dick Cheney had nothing to do with the bridge. You know how I know? Because he's not using the collapse as a pretext to invade other countries and "fix their bridges for them" or whatever bullshit excuse got us into Iraq. But then, you probably fell for that lie.
What the heck are you talking about? No, certain trusses are absorbing more stress than others. The overall structure is weakened, but some points more than others.
The pancake theory is fantasy. The structure collapsed in less than 10 seconds. As the linked article in my earlier post makes clear a pancake collapse would take much longer. Also, how would it get more and more straight down with every inch it travels down? It encounters resistance if the lower structure is still in place, and that resistance would cause the weight of the upper floors to tumble in other directions, just like a rock rolls down a mountain. That is NOT what was observed on 9/11. The whole thing folded like a house of cards. Twice. Then WTC7 collapsed for no apparent reason ("fire" my ass).
I suggest you read up on Steven E. Jones and what he has to say about the collapses.
I suggest you read this article if you want a scientific perspective.
I don't think the CIA would have to be psychic to know what was about to go down. Google "Tim Osman" if you want to learn more about bin Laden's CIA-linked activities.
For anybody who doesn't know what fantomas is alluding to in the post above, I urge you to download and watch the excellent BBC program The Power of Nightmares. It turns out that if you actually look closely at al Qaeda the whole thing unravels. OBL and Zawahiri are a bunch of losers, complete phonies and probably employed by the CIA and/or MI6.
Everybody knows Bin Laden worked for the CIA (through the Pakistani ISI proxy) during the 80's during the fight against the Soviets. Nobody seems to know when he stopped working for them. .... IF he stopped working for them.
Hatred? I hate what America has become, not what it once was and what it once stood for. I have only hatred for those who have tried to poison the well of democracy and usurp liberty. I love my country, and fuck you for implying otherwise. I don't give a damn if you were a Marine; you have apparently failed in your duty to protect the Constitution. You'd rather defend the status quo. The two are not the same.
Like a lot of military men you have an idealized, movie-inspired view of reality. Do you really think that all of the "bad guys" are "over there"? Do you really think every evil person is clearly labelled by his swarthy complection and his turban? The truth is much more insidious and horrifying.
The truth is that powerful men in our country are often much more interested in power than democracy. The most powerful and terrifying enemy we face today is not al-Qaeda or any other mythical terrorist group. No the enemy was born here, was raised here, is mostly white, mostly Christian and looks and acts just like the rest of us. They are the very people we look to for guidance: Our leaders.
Modern Republicans are almost uniformly fascists (Ron Paul is an exception), and modern Democrats are mostly sniveling cowards and sellouts. What do we have left? In a country where the media is almost exclusively corporate controlled we have virtually no chance of electing a 3rd party candidate -- yet they are our only hope.
I pray we will wake up before it's too late.
That's why the corporations decided to buy the government. They picked the first choice and then infiltrated the government ... gradually a heirarchy -- an Oligarchy -- developed as people went back and forth between government and the private sector. The Oligarchy was forged as rich men learned to scratch each other's back, even if it meant screwing over the public. In time, hidden groups formed, old groups changed and factions struggled for dominance behind the scenes. Our rulers (the real ones, not the puppets they put in front of you) long ago decided to control the public. Control of the internet is a logical extension of that desire for control.