erm... right..
You ask where the uncopyrighted material is, forgetting (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasnt just dishonesty) that COPYRIGHT IS APPLIED BY DEFAULT....
So what you are saying is: where are all the artists going out of their way to un-copyright their music.. when most musicians are a lot more worried about just eating. (since payola and riaa bullshit has made widespread success purely on your musical merits a difficult proposition)
Look, it works like this. When you want to make a claim for an event unbacked by ANY prior or subsequent events, and unsupported by the evidence on the day, you better have a damn good reason for it, and you dont. Your claims are silly (im being polite, because in truth, I dont want to offend you, and would much rather open your eyes) because they are not backed up by prior or subsequentexperience. I can show you a dozen controlled demolition collapses that look EXACTLY like the WTC7 collapse (I do hope you've watched this), and are backed up by dozens of witness statements, but you cannot show me one prior collapse to back up your theory, because it has NEVER happened before or since. Look at it this way:
Imagine a murder case, where the victim had gunshot residue indicating close range shot, but the suspect claimed to have fired in self defence from further away. If the victim could not produce any other examples of gunshot residue occuring from a distant shot, then the jury is not going to believe his story when the evidence clearly supports a close range execution style shot.
Well in this case, there are two stories: -
an unprecedented 4 planes successfully hijacked on the same day (never happened before) without setting off hijacking alarms in most cases and turned the transponders off, managed to avoid NORAD for nearly 2 hours, despite flying INTO the pentagon, one of the most well defended buildings in the world, supposedly, managed to hit targets with 100% accuracy if we discount the one plane shot down (I mean taken back by passengers), even though professional pilots have claimed that the manouvres where beyond ordinary human ability (and the "pilot" couldnt fly a cessna), and ignoring pages of other problems, 3 buildings collapse from fires and damage that they where engineered to take. This story has no real motive (if the terrorists wanted to hurt america, why pick empty planes, why attack at that time when an hour later would have caused many more casualties, WHY HIT THE ALMOST EMPTY BOMB PROOF AND FARTHEST CORNER of the pentagon, missing all the high level employees, when a straight dive would have allowed them to hit the section with the high level brass in it) and has NUMEROUS WORLD FIRSTS and PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES (pools of melted steel COULD NOT have occured just from kerosene and office fires). OR
a conspiracy involving various members of the millitary and government (has happened all through history) for MULTIPLE MASSIVE MOTIVES totalling at least trillions if not more, used remote controlled planes (been around for decades) to crash into buildings, and then explosives to bring them down (again, been done for years). There are no loose ends or problems with this one, it has means (these are powerful people) opportunity (eg Bush's brother running security at WTC, WTC powerdowns etc), Motive (afghani pipeline, opium in afghanistan, iraq invasion for various reasons, PATRIOT ACT, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS MISSING FROM THE DEFENSE BUDGET!!, 5 billion insurance +12 billion taxpayer money for the cleanup + billions in low interest loans + get rid of asbestos ridden hated buildings for silverstein, possible Gold Heist from the gold repository, WIPE OUT EVIDENCE FROM INSIDER TRADING CASES in the collapse of WTC7 (eg Enron)) and pages an pages of evidence (eyewitnesses, photo, video, etc etc etc).
THere is also the coverup afterwards (think about it: 40 million to investigate Clintons sex life, 16 million after delaying nearly 2 years (so most of the evidence was already destroyed) for an investigation into the biggest terrorist attack, biggest attack on US soil, biggest failure of US millitary/defence/NORAD, intelligence agencies, MASSIVE problem in that if these buildings could fall from fire, so could others, etc etc etc. And all it gets is 16 million? and the people running the investigations are ALL insiders and have huge conflicts of interest? We even know the likely culprits for the actual demolition: "Controlled Demolition Inc", one of the few companies worldwide able
I know this is a bit late, but Ive been busy marking exams, so havent checked back for a few days. Anyway, just incase you check back,
"Did they also have the weight of a fully-loaded 747 sitting on one of their stress-weakened floors?"
erm.... first, they where Boeing 767-222's, not 747's. Obviously you've done plenty of research into this topic, and just forgot this.....
A 767 weighs a little over 100 tonnes. The floors of the buildings weighed around 1000-> 3000 tonnes each. so adding the entire weight of a 767 added a whopping 3 -10% extra load to the floor, assuming it managed to stop itself on just one floor rather than multiple floors and assuming none fell out of the building. (I hope Im never in a structure where the safety limits are so low that 3% extra can make it fall..) If you cant see your argument is rediculous, I'll help you out a little more:
The buildings where designed to handle impacts from "fully loaded 707's", the largest passenger aircraft at the time. (this from the WTC construction and Project manager). In fact he believes they could withstand MULTIPLE strikes due to the "intense grid" construction, with a plane being like a "pencil through a screen door". A boeing 707 weighs between 100 and 150 tonnes. This is the same or in some cases MORE than the 767's that hit.
"Geez, I'm still amazed by the fact that it didn't fall over when it was hit"
Perhaps you should consider the hundreds of firefighters, who are normally experts (or at least the people in charge are) on when a building is safe to enter or not, who died because they disagreed with your statement. Perhaps you should read some of their interesting witness statements that they where BLOCKED FROM RELEASING for years!!!
I suppose this is why highrise buildings have fallen over previously from fires, because the steel gets weakened by the fire... oh wait they haven't?
So what you are proposing has never happened before?
Even in situations with FAR worse conditions such as entire large portions of buildings FULLY ENGULFED in flames for many HOURS, even days?
Even though the towers where SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand the damage of aircraft of almost identical size to the ones that crashed?
Even though they were designed to be able to stand with MORE THAN AN ENTIRE SIDE (ie 25% of the total) of the outer columns severed?
and your proof/evidence to support this wild and unreasonable conjecture is what exactly?
duh...I dunno, the hot fire, its burny, steel doesnt like the burny burny..goes boom all fall down.
(oh and you forget, WTC7 had no plane hit it. Claims that it had large diesel tanks on fire within it are just that, claims, and there are MANY VARYING reports on the severity of the damage and fires within WTC7, from different firefighters. You know, changing/inconsistant stories, the sort of thing that normally would make a witness statement doubtfull.)
P.S., this is not about Bush. Bush is a patsy. He almost certainly knew something was coming, but I personally doubt he planned it (plausable deniability and all that). Watch these very interesting videos and read these reports properly, preferably in this order, then do your own research on the issues involved, and see whether you still think there is no hidden agenda/conspiracy in play, and that you havent been lied to.(you can call it a (anti)propaganda course if you like, I dont care, just watch it)
1.) "The Money Masters" part 1part2on google video (not even 9/11 related, but EVERYONE should watch this, and make their own minds up whether they believe it.)
2.) "truth and lies of 9/11" on google video (by an ex narcotics policeman with a long family history of inteligence/enforcement etc)
3.) WACO rules of engagement part1part2, just to show you this sort of thing (media lies, government coverups) is not just bush related
4.) JFK II the bush connection you can disbelieve the bush connection if you want, the point to get from this film is the amount of lying to the public and complete disinformation that comes through the media
5.) getting into 9/11 now: read these reports: "why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse" (by a physics proffessor at BYU, make sure you watch the WTC7 collapse footage as well, its only short.
lastly, do your own research, use your own brain. www.scholarsfor911truth.org is a nice starting place. lookup WTC Gold repository, alex jones predicts 911 (you tube), the lone gunman pilot episode (you tube), afghanistan oil pipeline, opium production in afghanistan, bin laden fake tapes (his nose is WRONG, among other things, its not him), put options, securacom, WTC power downs, "everybodies gotta learn sometime" (google video), cheney "does the order still stand", bush goat story, PNAC "pearl harbour", pearl harbour itself, skull and bones bohemian grove(its not imaginary, its real, what they do, you m
really? what is airline fuel, do you even know? KEROSENE.
Even the official coverups, I mean investigations, werent stupid enough to blame the kerosene for softening the steel. They blamed the resulting office fires, forgetting that the fires were tiny and not hot, in comparison to dozens of other skyscraper fires that have never before or since caused a complete collapse of a modern (steel/concrete) highrise.
They had no explanation for the LARGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE (as described by various cleanup crew members, including the head of Controlled Demolitions), or the molten metal (which was NOT aluminium since this has a low emissivity, and does not glow brightly in daylight) pouring out a hole near the initial failure point, prior to the explosive collapse. This metal was in the range 950 to 1100 degrees C from the colour, which is FAR to hot for an ordinary office fire (and no the kerosene jet fuel did NOT cause it to get this hot). building fires dont normally even reach 100 deg C, except briefly at flashover. And thats the AIR temperature, not the surrounding heat sink/steel frame/concrete etc.
I agree on the whole "announce a price when we havent even got a commercial demo plant" thing being stupid, but you seem to have missed something. According to the article, supply of titanium is currently very limited due to environmental concerns, while demand keeps going up (and, although I'm not a metalurgist, is there any reason that titanium couldnt replace steel almost entirely if it was cheap enough? thats a lot of demand!). This removes that supply problem entirely if it works of course.
sorry, i like to discuss things a bit, and since Im actually used to reading books, I find all(most) all posts on slashdot to be short. I also admitted I was rambling so what your problem is I dont know.
anyway, as to your(my?) second point, firstly, a true christian would probably never murder or deliberately hurt anyone (except perhaps in self defence, but I dont even think that would work), so your point is technically correct however firstly I group most religeons together under "twisted bullshit people use to justify other twisted bullshit" so christians, muslims, any other people killing others for so called "religous" reasons, its all the same lies and "evil" in as much as there is any such thing. Christians invented many of the tortures and torturous interrogation techniques in use today, back when they where wiping whole segments of the map (ie the cathars) and trying to eradicate free thinking people (inquisition) in a burning torturing orgy of self righteousness.
You say they have moved on, yet wars are still being justified "in the name of god", free thinkers are still being told (forced) to consider inteligent design in science classes, where it DOES NOT belong, gays and other groups are discriminated against and hated at the say so of the church (ok there are other ingrained reasons as well but it's nice when your "moral" authority lets you hate the people you want to hate)
the church still covers up massive child sexual abuse problems (I personally know half a dozen people who have admitted to sexual abuse by priests. I know of no other abuses by anyone else. and thats just the ones that admitted it), still makes a large portion of the world fell guilty about the most rediculous things (moved on... hahahaha... what?), and forgive me if I'm wrong, but have they ever actually apologised for their organisations previous (and continuing) actions (ie inquisition, witch burnings, pedo, all the rest).
I hope this comment is not too long for you. perhaps Ill summarise it for you:
Your wrong. And a doofus. nah nah na nah nah
There, thats more like the "hop on spot" books you are more used to reading.
(oh and by the way, where is this historical evidence of the christian churches as organisations, not a few good people suckered in, acting as a good thing?)
First off, I would like to say that I respect Jesus Christ the man, because as far as we can tell, he said some very intelligent and kind things and taught a tolerance and wisdom I would have thought very out of place in the times (could be wrong, I dont live then.), and was willing to risk everything to do so, without hurting other people in the process
with that in mind, I am not at all religeous, but still have strong moral values, obtained as follows:
- there is no god, natural rights or universal truths, only the physical world we live in (*)
- therefore the only thing that matters is what we think matters, and by we, I mean any sentient being. The only tangible good is that which makes beings happy, and perhaps the increase in knowledge although thats more based on the first, and the only bad is that which makes us unhappy/causes pain.
- from this I get a personal moral code based on individual freedom, not hurting others (unless they want it: sm etc) except in self defence, not killing others except as a last resort in self defence. Environmentalism comes into it because of the enjoyment people get from nature, but there is no such thing as un-natural in the end, unless we can step outside this universe to alter things against the laws of physics etc.
The purpose of the above is to show that having a "god" define our morality is not neccessary, and I would argue that in general, most religeous people dont follow your logic of
"I would tell my children, not to steal, rape, murder, lie, etc. because it hurts us and our fellow men, and show how it does. Then tell them how God says the same thing and that we got this knowledge from Him"
but rather "dont do bad things or you'll go to hell" or even worse "dont do anything the church (any church) tells you not to, whether you think its right or wrong, and if you do something wrong, you must confess or repent or whatever, usually involving donations to said church." How can doing "good" out of fear of your god be better than simply doing "good"? Why would any reasonably decent person have to fear a perfect god? why would a perfect god design us to be lustful and then punish us for doing as our "design" tells us to?. Faith in the bible is a bad thing in my opinion (as opposed to seeking wisdom in the words of jesus, which may be quite sensible, so long as you make your own mind up about which parts are wise), its just a book! its missing large portions of jesus' intended wisdom (look up the council of nicea, gospel of mary, gospel of judas, gnosticism, trinitarianism versus jesus as a created being, and the way the christian church has consistantly twisted symbols of other faiths and beliefs into devil worship symbols, and the centuries long killing and destruction of wise/free thinking women (and men outside the church)and so on) , and is twisted into a guilt producing document, and then used incorrectly to justify wars for money and oil. By promoting blind faith in god/bible/church, discouraging free thinking, people become sheeple, and follow the (supposedly religeous) leader, even when he is "evil".
Im rambling now. Basically, the bible is NOT jesus's complete and unmodified word, the catholic church and many other religeous groups have committed unbelievably "evil" acts according to my own personal code (and most other peoples), and the teachings of the church dont match up with what we can see jesus teaching: namely peace, love for fellow humans, forgiveness, not worshiping idols or money or gold, that sort of thing, not "X is sinful, Y is sinful, you are all sinners, confess (without righting the wrongs you have done) and give us money and you will be forgiven". From this we can see that blind faith in the church is stupid to say the least, and blind faith in the bible is also not a good thing (although I admit there is more wisdom in it than given by the church). your non catholic/protestant faith makes more sense to me than average christian "faith", and yet, you still say you dont question the bibl
Hi there, Im a no talent loser with no singing voice and a paper bag I took a dump in. I have less skills on an instrument than a retarded monkey with a hernia(*). I would like your help with:
- someone to write me a song because I cant write my own
- someone to play instruments for me because I cant play my own
- digitally pitch shifting my voice so that it sounds like I am singing on key
- digitally enhancing my voice so that it doesnt make your ears bleed and your head explode from the pain
- enhancing my voice some more so its less painfull than a barbed wire necklace
- even more enhancing so that some people (in the loosest definition of the word) might (and thats a very weak might) enjoy it
- dressing me up and enhancing my image to the point where young teenagers will be conned into thinking I'm cool
- promoting me all over the place to overcome my distinct lack of good qualities, beyond my ability to do what im told and possible visual attractiveness
- promoting me via illegal payola so that I can get sales which in all fairness should be going to someone with some actual talent, but they werent willing to bend over for you quite so far
- giving me 5 cents in the dollar or less from sales of my "music" (my fingers threw up a little just typing that word)
- suiing little girls and grandmas without pc's for even living in the same world as people who might want to sample my music before buying it (understandable really) or (heaven forbid, what is wrong with them?) listen to it illegally. (or those who just dont think that giving large evil corporations who ruin the music industry (and this from a professional musician) all my money so they can maybe pass on a few cents to the artist while ruining more peoples lives is a good idea, when I can instead see them live when they tour my city or somewhere nearby, and then they'll get a decent proportion of my money, assuming they didnt get more buttfucked than usual and dont even own the rights to perform their own music or some other such riaa bull#*&^)
- lobbying governments and bribing politicians (im sorry but what the f&%# else do you call it? "campaign contributions"? Its bribes, plain and simple) to bring in anti-constitutional laws and perform illegal raids to protect our flawed business models
I could go on, but the point is, I cant even listen to the rubbish on most popular radio stations. so called singers who cant sing on pitch, and use digital enhancement to "sing", "musicians" who wouldnt know music if it bit them on the ass. Meanwhile the real artists with talent and some morals/brains I see all around struggling to get noticed without selling out (or being played on non clearchannel stations). My main option for legal music online is a format that wont play on many players and is of lower quality than (to my trained ears, although I admit many people may not notice the difference) already low quality CD's, yet costs a dollar a song? and of that, the artist gets how much again? (why dont you look it up, and do some actual research to realise the true situation). Or I can choose the russian site, with decent quality and price options, but of dubious legality but morally no better than just getting them off bittorrent (actually, depending on where you believe the money is actually going, possibly a lot worse)
lets look at a quote from your example and go a little deeper:
"I don't want to spend any out-of-pocket money on this, since, like most struggling musicians, I don't have any."
now ask yourself why that is? In a world where people with no musical talent (cant hold a note, cant write a song, cant play an instrument better than a begginer) are all over the charts, making tons of money? Could it be that by only promoting those "stars" that will bend over and touch their toes for them, and using illegal payola to make sure talented people who dont sell out wont get much airplay, and then taking 95% + of the sales money, they ar
and why do you think people are suing the power companies in those places then?. Now I'm not suggesting those blackouts where any one persons fault, a number of factors contributed, but those power companies failed to meet their contracted obligations and are being sued for reasons related to the blackouts. (also they never made unlimited power contracts with customers, it was always charge by the killowatt). Contention is not the problem I AM FINE WITH A COMPANY USING CONTENTION if and only if:
customers are aware of its existance, not through fine print but obvious notices (especially if the ratio is bad enough that it effects them noticeably, eg, most isp's), i.e. no false advertising unlimited when it's not (if it has never affected any users noticeably, ie the ratio is good enough it doesnt matter, then maybe they can get around this one, although it would still be technically false advertising to claim unlimited), secondly:
The company using contention doesnt whinge about users using too much bandwidth/power/water/whatever and try to fudge the cost onto google/airconditioner company/shower head maker/etc When coming up with the contention enabled download plans, users who actually utilise their connections to the full extent they paid for should be included in the cost estimates. If they cant cover them, they shouldnt advertise the plan, they should raise the price, or put some sort of obvious download limit on the plan.
you dont seem to understand the actual situation (assuming the following situation is what you are talking about, I could be entirely wrong).
ISP's (at least here in australia) charge end users either set fee's for supposedly unlimited access at a maximum data rate, or fees based on how much they download. big wensites like google pay other isp's (or set up their own equipment) fees based on how much bandwidth is used by the website. in this setup, it should be obvious that any costs for users bandwidth should be covered by the fees charged them, NO MATTER THE CONTENT BEING VIEWED (its all just bits to an ISP), and beyond paying the bandwidth costs incured by its webhosting company (plus extra for profit of course), a website should not have to pay any other isp for data transfered through that isp's net:
They are ALREADY being payed for it by the end user downloading said data.
any arguments of "unexpectedly heavy bandwidth use" are rediculous, implying(and this is in fact generally true) that the ISP is engaging in a kind of false advertising, whereby you pay for an "unlimited download x mb/s connection" but are infact recieving an "x mb/s maximum, not garaunteed, download limited depending on how other people are downloading/ how overloaded our pipe is/ any other reason we pullout our &%$&.
The situation is analogous to signing a contract for unlimited electricity usage at a maximum 4 KW with a power company (no i've never heard of such a contract either), only to find that your entire street of 20 houses (on similar contract) only has a 6KW powerline supplying it, so if you and your neighbours both try to run a 4KW airconditioner your screwed. the power company then wants the airconditioner manufacturer to pay them as well for using too much power. Its rediculous, any costs incurred in supplying the electricity should be covered by the contract, and if they arent, thats the power companys (or ISP's in the real world) own bad luck for bad business planning (and signing a contract they never inteded to honour).
I have no problem with the isp charging users a cost per kb, if thats the obvious upfront deal (and if they can get users to sign up) but this cost and this alone should cover the isps costs for supplying this user. They should not expect a webservice provider not directly connected to them to pay them simply because the data travels over their net, THATS WHAT THE END USER IS PAYING THEM FOR!.
anyway apologies if this is not what you were talking about.
this attitude that the government is bumbling fools (well some of them are) and therefore any conspiracy is impossible is VERY dangerous and very false. when I claim conspiracy, I'm not talking about dubya organsing a massive attack all by himself (in fact I would guess that for plausable deniability, he had no IDEA what the plans would actually entail, just that there would be some sort of attack, and he probably assumed it would be on the scale of the previous wtc bombing or perhaps the oklahoma bombing at the most). Try to follow my line of reasoning:
We KNOW that the CIA and government officials strongly believed that an attack on this scale could be carried out and kept secret, because they presented a similar plan to JFK back in the sixties (operation northwood), and have a long record of decieving the US populace on a large scale (try to find original news footage of the oklahoma bombing where EVERYONE reported secnd and third unexploded explosive devices found by the police/fbi, then look at the official story now: one truck bomb, or look up pearl harbour (hint it was no surprise attack)). you might argue that it would be harder to keep secret now with the net and "better" news coverage, but with 40 years of "conspiracy nutjob" and "questioning the government is unpatriotic" dirven into the publics mind, along with MUCH tighter media control (the entire mainstream media is now owned by a handfull of multi national companies, often huge millitary contractors (eg GE -NBC ) or relatives of people in the administration (such as bush's cousin at fox: the one who announced he'd won the election when he obviously hadn't, and won him the entire "election") it is actually a lot easier now(people, including me, have a very strong association in our heads between the word conspiracy and being crazy/or at best "interesting but probably not true" and feel that only "conspiracy nuts" would bother to look into it)
We know that even when large numbers of people question the truth of something, the mainstream media can and does ignore it (if they are told to) for example, 50% of new-yorkers believe that the government knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen, yet there is no independant inquiry, no mainstream news DEMANDING another look at the issue etc (take a close, or even cursory, look at who was on the official "investigation" board, and look at their connections. Basically the suspects investigated themselves and declared themselves innocent (of everything it seems, even incompetence)). Many are too brainwashed to see it, and those that do, see how innefectual it was when others have come out and said anything, and how they were treated, lives ruined, fired etc (plus of course if they had any hard evidence of a conspiracy involving 3000 murders, whats one more?): look at the the guy from UL, he wrote a single letter which made a lot of sense, was fired (well he did act as if he was representing the companies views, but if he was under the impression his company HAD certified the steel, then he was really defending his company), he's been fired, picked on as a kook, and god knows what else. I doubt he'll be able to get a similar job for quite quite a while. Or look at john o'neil, the bin-laden expert who died as the head of wtc security, very conveniently, after being subject to a smear campaign for a year. Even the guy that "found" him was sus (ie if there was a conspiracy he was a likely insider)(have a google for him, and read thisto start although its more related to bin laden than o'neil).
We also know that government agencies can keep secrets. how many people knew about stealth bombers before the official release. I dont mean thought maybe. oh sure the conspiracy sites talked about it, just like they talk about 9/11. and some people knew they existed, from reading about it, but mainstream news didnt talk about it as fact. You may have acce
we are not talking about controling a plane in the air, we are talking about powerdiving down from a fair altitude while turning a sharp corner, then skimming along low enough to clip cars and power poles without touching the ground, for hundreds of metres, at full speed/power, directly into a building. and after all that effort, hitting the only section which was almost empty of military personel due to blast proofing renovations, all after having failed to pass a simple flight test to hire a cessna a few weeks before.
Firstly, interesting viewpoint, I would say insightful, and yet, I dont agree with some of it
next, I actually was doubtful of 9/11 being anything but government bungling and muslim extremist attack, but the more I looked, the harder I found it was to believe that, and currently, I can see no way that it was anything LIKE the official explanation. It was very strange analysing my own reaction to the knowledge: even though, thinking about it logically I could see there was no way the official explanation was true, It took a long time to actually accept that this was really happening (and it still doesnt quite feel real, even though I'm sure it is). It's called denial, and I remember the feeling from when my grandpa died, even though I knew he was dead, I felt it wasnt real and he was still alive (we were close).
I'm not actually an american (aussie) although I see similarities in whats happening here, but (I think...) it's no-where near as bad here yet.
straight off the bat, I would say that you are right in that many conspiracy theorists are getting wrapped up in a few little details, and not seeing the big picture. I think this is one of the biggest problems I face in trying to convince people, and one of the biggest problems the "9/11 truth" movement faces: the conspiracy movement is made up of: intelligent people who see problems with the official theories and try to find answers, people who just want to believe in a conspiracy and believe whatever they read (and pass it on), people making money/fame/having fun/etc from it, either validly (by telling the truth) or invalidly (by embellishing,/making stories up), and also, IF there actually is a conspiracy, then there are people spreading disinformation and deliberately causing confusion, for easier deniability. For this reason, It's actually quite hard to determine fact from fiction (trust me, I've tried) for some of the wilder claims, but, no matter what, just going off information available from what should be reliable sources, there is just TOO much wrong for me to blindly accept the official conspiracy theory.
Look at it this way: there are people in the world who kill for money, so while immoral, it is in fact a possible human action. The more money involved, the more likely people are to kill for it (althogh this does not apply to everyone; im sure there are many people, myself included I hope, who cannot be bought for any price). It would also appear that you have accepted that some people are capable of killing hundreds or thousands of people to make a point/get revenge, and we know from history that many leaders have been willing to sacrifice people for the "greater good", and often just for personal reasons. So we have no reason to believe that people in this goevernment would not be capable of this, especially if they could somehow twist it to seem like killing for the greater good, in their own minds, and especially if there was a LARGE amount of money and power as motive.
So given all that, what we have is a situation where we have a crime commited, and two current suspects. unfortunately, one of those suspects is the one pointing the finger at the other suspect, and, if guilty, is also in the position to tamper with evidence, kill witnesses, and influence the media. So the solution seems to be to just step back and look for motive, means, opportunity, and evidence for the two suspects.
Some people believe that since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we should not even entertain the idea of a conspiracy unless presented with hard evidence. While I personally believe that this evidence is obvious to those looking, my main point would be, what about the extraordinary claims of the offical theory? Here are just a few of the extraordinary claims (in my opinion) that the offical theory makes that should require extraordinary evidence:
- that it is possible for (seemingly) well organised terrorists, many of whom were known to inteligence as such, to get into the country (with badly/incorrectly fi
but I'm not willing to lie to myself (at least I hope I'm not, and I'm assuming you believe you're not either).
I looked at the loose change video after, previously investigating 9/11 for a while, and can see that many of the CONCLUSIONS that the director seems to be/are suggesting are far fatched or not supported by the evidence. What is interesting is the footage itself, and some of the many points he makes(or tries), unfortunately there are quite a few errors in it, as I've since discovered.
What I would like to see answered are the following questions:
1) why 3 unprecedented collapses on the same day (building collapses 1, 2 and 7)? release the blueprints so that scientific studies can be PUBLICLY done (not by a government commision chaired by the very people suspected of possible wrongdoing) to determine if it is even possible for those collapses to occur the way they did. I would like to see a finite element simulation of the buildings showing exactly what would be required for those collapses to occur the way they did (esp wt7), in the time they did, and with the amount of pulverisation that they endured
2)How did mayor guiliani get warned of the first collapse (see one of my other posts)? who warned him or is this story rubbish (It was HIS words that I am refering to)
3) why did silverstein say "pull it". I do not see how his words (and I refer to the entire comment in context not just these two words)could POSSIBLY mean pulling the firefighters out. It doesnt make any sense. neither the firefighters nor the firebrigade would be an "it" in this sentence, they would be a "them. "If he did "pull it", how did they have have time to wire the building to fall, it normally takes weeks of planning and setup.
4) am I just supposed to believe the ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE chain of fortuitis events and seemingly out of character behaviour/impossible luck (for the "terrorists" not us)letting this occur had NOTHING to do with people like Dick Cheney who are connected to these events all over the place: examples: (and yes, I'd like better sources on some of these, but most seem valid)
- terrorists get into country with wrongly filled out forms, shouldnt have been let in
- terrorists bahaved strangely for supposed muslim extremists: reports of partying at strip clubs etc
- 100% success rate in getting onto planes with knifes(boxcutters), even though some were so disorganised as to be LATE for the planes they were supposed to catch
- 100% (initial) success rate in capturing the cockpits, while taking over from millitary veteran pilots: not even any hijack warning codes put in
- just luck that guns were no longer allowed to be carried by the cabin crew for security, as of that year(who changed this rule and what was the justification?)
- just INCREDIBLE EXTRAORDINARY luck that multiple millitary exercises (traced back to dick cheney I believe) were running on that day, involving hijacked planes flying into buildings and other interesting coincidences, creating a situation where almost no one, in the faa or millitary, knew what the hell was going on until too late, and there were very few planes left that could do anything if they did know
- just incredibly lucky that the pilots who finally did get scrambled where not told of the entire situation (they werent told much at all it seems) and only flew at a small fraction of their maximum speeds, and also whoever was instructing them seemingly ignored the possiblility of these jets going after the pentagon plane
- just incredible luck that the pentagon "didnt" fire their anti aircraft missiles(are these made up? someone tell me these are made up, otherwise why didnt they (supposedly) fire) or scramble nearby jets after knowing what was going on because of the tower strikes
- just insanely lucky that the hijacker pilots were skillful enough to pull of insanely difficult manouvres when some had trouble even landing a cessna (eg diving down and turning round at 500 mile an hour, to find him
I've been researching for some time and no, i've never heard of it. If you did, then it seems you're the only one:) perhaps a computer simulation? on a fuzzy TV? while drunk? and sleepy? (got nothing)
how about a combination? there are 40 witnesses saw a plane (but not the same plane, two different sorts of jumbo and some swore it was a bizjet, semi-explainable, they were in shock and memory is not always 100%):My take, there was a plane of some sort, and it looked at least reasonably like a passenger jet
Next we have a witness who saw a millitary helicopter, from the far side of the building, and it went towards the helipad near the crash site just before the fireball. Only one witness (as far as I know) but its not like you could confuse a plane with a helicopter all that easily and it was coming from the far (hidden from freeway) side. Relevance? unsure. possibility given later
Next we have millitary trained personal claiming to have smelled cordite (explosives), witnesses who claimed the airoplane blew up before impact, witnesses who saw a missile, and a damage pattern more consistant with a combination missile/explosives strike than a plane crash. We also have a video showing:
- no recognizable airplane: the one frame that shows a small white thing doesnt look like a jumbo jet to me (but could be...maybe): wrong size/shape/thickness but its hard to tell. It looks like a missile to me though.
- Fireball is COMPLETELY wrong for a jet crash... isn't it? am I the only one noticing this? a jet traveling at 500 miles per hour flies smack into a building and the resulting fireball looks perfectly symetrical around a vertical center line? not splayed out as I would expect? can someone explain this cos I cant see it
- some people have raised doubts about its authenticity: to do with shadows, lighting, what looks like editing of the colours in one frame (talking about older release here). Me- I think its probably mostly real, but question what it shows, and REALLY would like to know if there is no conspiracy, then why has the other footage not been released, and why did this take so long?
My theory? there was a plane (remote controlled, maybe the original, maybe not) and it was somehow exploded before impact (perhaps the helicopter shot missiles at it? I doubt they would be powerful enough but dont know, or it already had explosives on board, or the anti arcraft missile battery actuallly worked but they havent told us). or maybe overflew the building and kept out of view (Im doubtful of this one, but otheriwse where is all the wreckage?) I think there was a missile involved (either in blowing up the plane before impact or causing some of the damage- wintesses saw it) I'm a bit thrown off by the fireball. It doesnt fit with what I imagine should have happened in a pure plane crash (why symmetrical?) but also cordite is almost smokeless and flashless and so couldnt have caused it. there is the strangely almost perfect edge of the hole supposedly knocked out by part of the airplane (it seems looking at that website that that may have just been a mistake and it was really an access hole made for emergency workers: makes more sense)
ok so what are we left with? confusion. And I think thats likely one of the main purposes of the attack at the pentagon: confusion and misdirection. Get conspiracy theorists confused and making up wild speculation, including the speculation that there wasn't a plane, and most people will just assume they are nuts, cos 40 people saw the plane. maybe the people involved werent sure they could count on the plane not getting shot down at the last minute (eg by the aa missiles), so set up explosives just in case? this particular conspiracy is generally thought NOT to have deeply involved the military in the planning and execution, with the bush administration, CIA and others involved probably relying on confusion due to the wargames and key personel who were in on it to dupe the millitary into letting it happen, which also explains flight 93 getting shot down (not everyone went along with it...)
him being fired proves neither that he was right or wrong.
If he was right about the company certifying the steel, it implies one of two things: a massive conspiracy OR (massive) failure to properly test the steel.
IF massive conspiracy, then why not a little bit more to get him fired and completely deny responsibility (the alternative would be trying to prove the U.S. government was lying about the cause of the failures, most likely in court, while defending themselves from criminal negligence charges). They would likely take the easy way out, fire him, shift the blame and deny responsibility, with the blessing and probably cash of the conspiriteurs.
If they actually failed to certify the steel they were supposed to, they would be guilty of negligence resulting in thousands of deaths so again, would try to deny it and fire him.
If he was wrong, about them certifying it, but right about his calculations of the impossibility of the official explanation, they would probably still fire him for going against the official theory while claiming to act as a company rep, and casting their company in a bad light.
If he was totally wrong, then they would fire him for any number of reasons, which shouldnt need pointing out.
So him being fired is irrelevant to the truth of his claims. the only thing that is relevant is whether the arguments in his letter are valid, and as far as I can tell, they are. plus certified or not, you would hope that the steel used would be close to passing that spec, if that was a common spec used at the time, and since most iron/steel has similar melting points/behaviour (I am not a blacksmith, buit see earlier blacksmiths comments for someone who is) it doesnt matter much anyway, his point still stands that the heat shouldnt have caused the collapse as hydrocarbon fires not forcefed (preheated?)air (or better yet oxygen) in ideal (no heat loss, stoichiometric oxygen/fuel mix) conditions dont get anywhere near hot enough to cause the melted steel visible before/after the collapse, nor to weaken the steel below it's 600% overengineered safety margin as claimed (especially the giant heatsink that the center column basically was) and especially not in an hour!.
On the topic of the ASTM E119 fire test for materials in the building, even the official report doesn't seem to deny that the materials were tested, just questions the usefulness of the test (see herepage 18, if you find a denial in this, let me know)
Slashdot Mirror
So what you are saying is: where are all the artists going out of their way to un-copyright their music.. when most musicians are a lot more worried about just eating. (since payola and riaa bullshit has made widespread success purely on your musical merits a difficult proposition)
already happening. See china/3rd world. 2) point taken, hope they hurry up before some one harvests me for my heart of gold :)
Imagine a murder case, where the victim had gunshot residue indicating close range shot, but the suspect claimed to have fired in self defence from further away. If the victim could not produce any other examples of gunshot residue occuring from a distant shot, then the jury is not going to believe his story when the evidence clearly supports a close range execution style shot.
Well in this case, there are two stories: -
an unprecedented 4 planes successfully hijacked on the same day (never happened before) without setting off hijacking alarms in most cases and turned the transponders off, managed to avoid NORAD for nearly 2 hours, despite flying INTO the pentagon, one of the most well defended buildings in the world, supposedly, managed to hit targets with 100% accuracy if we discount the one plane shot down (I mean taken back by passengers), even though professional pilots have claimed that the manouvres where beyond ordinary human ability (and the "pilot" couldnt fly a cessna), and ignoring pages of other problems, 3 buildings collapse from fires and damage that they where engineered to take. This story has no real motive (if the terrorists wanted to hurt america, why pick empty planes, why attack at that time when an hour later would have caused many more casualties, WHY HIT THE ALMOST EMPTY BOMB PROOF AND FARTHEST CORNER of the pentagon, missing all the high level employees, when a straight dive would have allowed them to hit the section with the high level brass in it) and has NUMEROUS WORLD FIRSTS and PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES (pools of melted steel COULD NOT have occured just from kerosene and office fires). OR
a conspiracy involving various members of the millitary and government (has happened all through history) for MULTIPLE MASSIVE MOTIVES totalling at least trillions if not more, used remote controlled planes (been around for decades) to crash into buildings, and then explosives to bring them down (again, been done for years). There are no loose ends or problems with this one, it has means (these are powerful people) opportunity (eg Bush's brother running security at WTC, WTC powerdowns etc), Motive (afghani pipeline, opium in afghanistan, iraq invasion for various reasons, PATRIOT ACT, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS MISSING FROM THE DEFENSE BUDGET!!, 5 billion insurance +12 billion taxpayer money for the cleanup + billions in low interest loans + get rid of asbestos ridden hated buildings for silverstein, possible Gold Heist from the gold repository, WIPE OUT EVIDENCE FROM INSIDER TRADING CASES in the collapse of WTC7 (eg Enron)) and pages an pages of evidence (eyewitnesses, photo, video, etc etc etc).
THere is also the coverup afterwards (think about it: 40 million to investigate Clintons sex life, 16 million after delaying nearly 2 years (so most of the evidence was already destroyed) for an investigation into the biggest terrorist attack, biggest attack on US soil, biggest failure of US millitary/defence/NORAD, intelligence agencies, MASSIVE problem in that if these buildings could fall from fire, so could others, etc etc etc. And all it gets is 16 million? and the people running the investigations are ALL insiders and have huge conflicts of interest? We even know the likely culprits for the actual demolition: "Controlled Demolition Inc", one of the few companies worldwide able
"Did they also have the weight of a fully-loaded 747 sitting on one of their stress-weakened floors?"
erm.... first, they where Boeing 767-222's, not 747's. Obviously you've done plenty of research into this topic, and just forgot this.....
A 767 weighs a little over 100 tonnes. The floors of the buildings weighed around 1000-> 3000 tonnes each. so adding the entire weight of a 767 added a whopping 3 -10% extra load to the floor, assuming it managed to stop itself on just one floor rather than multiple floors and assuming none fell out of the building. (I hope Im never in a structure where the safety limits are so low that 3% extra can make it fall..) If you cant see your argument is rediculous, I'll help you out a little more:
The buildings where designed to handle impacts from "fully loaded 707's", the largest passenger aircraft at the time. (this from the WTC construction and Project manager). In fact he believes they could withstand MULTIPLE strikes due to the "intense grid" construction, with a plane being like a "pencil through a screen door". A boeing 707 weighs between 100 and 150 tonnes. This is the same or in some cases MORE than the 767's that hit.
"Geez, I'm still amazed by the fact that it didn't fall over when it was hit"
Perhaps you should consider the hundreds of firefighters, who are normally experts (or at least the people in charge are) on when a building is safe to enter or not, who died because they disagreed with your statement. Perhaps you should read some of their interesting witness statements that they where BLOCKED FROM RELEASING for years!!!
So what you are proposing has never happened before?
Even in situations with FAR worse conditions such as entire large portions of buildings FULLY ENGULFED in flames for many HOURS, even days?
Even though the towers where SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand the damage of aircraft of almost identical size to the ones that crashed?
Even though they were designed to be able to stand with MORE THAN AN ENTIRE SIDE (ie 25% of the total) of the outer columns severed?
and your proof/evidence to support this wild and unreasonable conjecture is what exactly?
duh...I dunno, the hot fire, its burny, steel doesnt like the burny burny..goes boom all fall down.
(oh and you forget, WTC7 had no plane hit it. Claims that it had large diesel tanks on fire within it are just that, claims, and there are MANY VARYING reports on the severity of the damage and fires within WTC7, from different firefighters. You know, changing/inconsistant stories, the sort of thing that normally would make a witness statement doubtfull.)
P.S., this is not about Bush. Bush is a patsy. He almost certainly knew something was coming, but I personally doubt he planned it (plausable deniability and all that). Watch these very interesting videos and read these reports properly, preferably in this order, then do your own research on the issues involved, and see whether you still think there is no hidden agenda/conspiracy in play, and that you havent been lied to.(you can call it a (anti)propaganda course if you like, I dont care, just watch it)
1.) "The Money Masters" part 1 part2on google video (not even 9/11 related, but EVERYONE should watch this, and make their own minds up whether they believe it.)
2.) "truth and lies of 9/11" on google video (by an ex narcotics policeman with a long family history of inteligence/enforcement etc)
3.) WACO rules of engagement part1 part2, just to show you this sort of thing (media lies, government coverups) is not just bush related
4.) JFK II the bush connection you can disbelieve the bush connection if you want, the point to get from this film is the amount of lying to the public and complete disinformation that comes through the media
5.) getting into 9/11 now: read these reports: "why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse" (by a physics proffessor at BYU, make sure you watch the WTC7 collapse footage as well, its only short.
6.) ...WTC...Why the Official Account Cannot Be True for all of you who think you are being "scientific" or using common sense in doubting the conspiracy theories.
lastly, do your own research, use your own brain. www.scholarsfor911truth.org is a nice starting place. lookup WTC Gold repository, alex jones predicts 911 (you tube), the lone gunman pilot episode (you tube), afghanistan oil pipeline, opium production in afghanistan, bin laden fake tapes (his nose is WRONG, among other things, its not him), put options, securacom, WTC power downs, "everybodies gotta learn sometime" (google video), cheney "does the order still stand", bush goat story, PNAC "pearl harbour", pearl harbour itself, skull and bones bohemian grove(its not imaginary, its real, what they do, you m
oops that should be 1000 deg C
Even the official coverups, I mean investigations, werent stupid enough to blame the kerosene for softening the steel. They blamed the resulting office fires, forgetting that the fires were tiny and not hot, in comparison to dozens of other skyscraper fires that have never before or since caused a complete collapse of a modern (steel/concrete) highrise.
They had no explanation for the LARGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE (as described by various cleanup crew members, including the head of Controlled Demolitions), or the molten metal (which was NOT aluminium since this has a low emissivity, and does not glow brightly in daylight) pouring out a hole near the initial failure point, prior to the explosive collapse. This metal was in the range 950 to 1100 degrees C from the colour, which is FAR to hot for an ordinary office fire (and no the kerosene jet fuel did NOT cause it to get this hot). building fires dont normally even reach 100 deg C, except briefly at flashover. And thats the AIR temperature, not the surrounding heat sink/steel frame/concrete etc.
EXACTLY. I wish more people would realise this.
I agree on the whole "announce a price when we havent even got a commercial demo plant" thing being stupid, but you seem to have missed something. According to the article, supply of titanium is currently very limited due to environmental concerns, while demand keeps going up (and, although I'm not a metalurgist, is there any reason that titanium couldnt replace steel almost entirely if it was cheap enough? thats a lot of demand!). This removes that supply problem entirely if it works of course.
You say they have moved on, yet wars are still being justified "in the name of god", free thinkers are still being told (forced) to consider inteligent design in science classes, where it DOES NOT belong, gays and other groups are discriminated against and hated at the say so of the church (ok there are other ingrained reasons as well but it's nice when your "moral" authority lets you hate the people you want to hate)
the church still covers up massive child sexual abuse problems (I personally know half a dozen people who have admitted to sexual abuse by priests. I know of no other abuses by anyone else. and thats just the ones that admitted it), still makes a large portion of the world fell guilty about the most rediculous things (moved on... hahahaha... what?), and forgive me if I'm wrong, but have they ever actually apologised for their organisations previous (and continuing) actions (ie inquisition, witch burnings, pedo, all the rest).
I hope this comment is not too long for you. perhaps Ill summarise it for you:
Your wrong. And a doofus. nah nah na nah nah
There, thats more like the "hop on spot" books you are more used to reading. (oh and by the way, where is this historical evidence of the christian churches as organisations, not a few good people suckered in, acting as a good thing?)
with that in mind, I am not at all religeous, but still have strong moral values, obtained as follows:
- there is no god, natural rights or universal truths, only the physical world we live in (*)
- therefore the only thing that matters is what we think matters, and by we, I mean any sentient being. The only tangible good is that which makes beings happy, and perhaps the increase in knowledge although thats more based on the first, and the only bad is that which makes us unhappy/causes pain.
- from this I get a personal moral code based on individual freedom, not hurting others (unless they want it: sm etc) except in self defence, not killing others except as a last resort in self defence. Environmentalism comes into it because of the enjoyment people get from nature, but there is no such thing as un-natural in the end, unless we can step outside this universe to alter things against the laws of physics etc.
The purpose of the above is to show that having a "god" define our morality is not neccessary, and I would argue that in general, most religeous people dont follow your logic of
"I would tell my children, not to steal, rape, murder, lie, etc. because it hurts us and our fellow men, and show how it does. Then tell them how God says the same thing and that we got this knowledge from Him"
but rather "dont do bad things or you'll go to hell" or even worse "dont do anything the church (any church) tells you not to, whether you think its right or wrong, and if you do something wrong, you must confess or repent or whatever, usually involving donations to said church." How can doing "good" out of fear of your god be better than simply doing "good"? Why would any reasonably decent person have to fear a perfect god? why would a perfect god design us to be lustful and then punish us for doing as our "design" tells us to?. Faith in the bible is a bad thing in my opinion (as opposed to seeking wisdom in the words of jesus, which may be quite sensible, so long as you make your own mind up about which parts are wise), its just a book! its missing large portions of jesus' intended wisdom (look up the council of nicea, gospel of mary, gospel of judas, gnosticism, trinitarianism versus jesus as a created being, and the way the christian church has consistantly twisted symbols of other faiths and beliefs into devil worship symbols, and the centuries long killing and destruction of wise/free thinking women (and men outside the church)and so on) , and is twisted into a guilt producing document, and then used incorrectly to justify wars for money and oil. By promoting blind faith in god/bible/church, discouraging free thinking, people become sheeple, and follow the (supposedly religeous) leader, even when he is "evil".
Im rambling now. Basically, the bible is NOT jesus's complete and unmodified word, the catholic church and many other religeous groups have committed unbelievably "evil" acts according to my own personal code (and most other peoples), and the teachings of the church dont match up with what we can see jesus teaching: namely peace, love for fellow humans, forgiveness, not worshiping idols or money or gold, that sort of thing, not "X is sinful, Y is sinful, you are all sinners, confess (without righting the wrongs you have done) and give us money and you will be forgiven". From this we can see that blind faith in the church is stupid to say the least, and blind faith in the bible is also not a good thing (although I admit there is more wisdom in it than given by the church). your non catholic/protestant faith makes more sense to me than average christian "faith", and yet, you still say you dont question the bibl
Hi there, Im a no talent loser with no singing voice and a paper bag I took a dump in. I have less skills on an instrument than a retarded monkey with a hernia(*). I would like your help with:
- someone to write me a song because I cant write my own
- someone to play instruments for me because I cant play my own
- digitally pitch shifting my voice so that it sounds like I am singing on key
- digitally enhancing my voice so that it doesnt make your ears bleed and your head explode from the pain
- enhancing my voice some more so its less painfull than a barbed wire necklace
- even more enhancing so that some people (in the loosest definition of the word) might (and thats a very weak might) enjoy it
- dressing me up and enhancing my image to the point where young teenagers will be conned into thinking I'm cool
- promoting me all over the place to overcome my distinct lack of good qualities, beyond my ability to do what im told and possible visual attractiveness
- promoting me via illegal payola so that I can get sales which in all fairness should be going to someone with some actual talent, but they werent willing to bend over for you quite so far
- giving me 5 cents in the dollar or less from sales of my "music" (my fingers threw up a little just typing that word)
- suiing little girls and grandmas without pc's for even living in the same world as people who might want to sample my music before buying it (understandable really) or (heaven forbid, what is wrong with them?) listen to it illegally. (or those who just dont think that giving large evil corporations who ruin the music industry (and this from a professional musician) all my money so they can maybe pass on a few cents to the artist while ruining more peoples lives is a good idea, when I can instead see them live when they tour my city or somewhere nearby, and then they'll get a decent proportion of my money, assuming they didnt get more buttfucked than usual and dont even own the rights to perform their own music or some other such riaa bull#*&^)
- lobbying governments and bribing politicians (im sorry but what the f&%# else do you call it? "campaign contributions"? Its bribes, plain and simple) to bring in anti-constitutional laws and perform illegal raids to protect our flawed business models
I could go on, but the point is, I cant even listen to the rubbish on most popular radio stations. so called singers who cant sing on pitch, and use digital enhancement to "sing", "musicians" who wouldnt know music if it bit them on the ass. Meanwhile the real artists with talent and some morals/brains I see all around struggling to get noticed without selling out (or being played on non clearchannel stations). My main option for legal music online is a format that wont play on many players and is of lower quality than (to my trained ears, although I admit many people may not notice the difference) already low quality CD's, yet costs a dollar a song? and of that, the artist gets how much again? (why dont you look it up, and do some actual research to realise the true situation). Or I can choose the russian site, with decent quality and price options, but of dubious legality but morally no better than just getting them off bittorrent (actually, depending on where you believe the money is actually going, possibly a lot worse)
lets look at a quote from your example and go a little deeper:
"I don't want to spend any out-of-pocket money on this, since, like most struggling musicians, I don't have any."
now ask yourself why that is? In a world where people with no musical talent (cant hold a note, cant write a song, cant play an instrument better than a begginer) are all over the charts, making tons of money? Could it be that by only promoting those "stars" that will bend over and touch their toes for them, and using illegal payola to make sure talented people who dont sell out wont get much airplay, and then taking 95% + of the sales money, they ar
customers are aware of its existance, not through fine print but obvious notices (especially if the ratio is bad enough that it effects them noticeably, eg, most isp's), i.e. no false advertising unlimited when it's not (if it has never affected any users noticeably, ie the ratio is good enough it doesnt matter, then maybe they can get around this one, although it would still be technically false advertising to claim unlimited), secondly :
The company using contention doesnt whinge about users using too much bandwidth/power/water/whatever and try to fudge the cost onto google/airconditioner company/shower head maker/etc When coming up with the contention enabled download plans, users who actually utilise their connections to the full extent they paid for should be included in the cost estimates. If they cant cover them, they shouldnt advertise the plan, they should raise the price, or put some sort of obvious download limit on the plan.
ISP's (at least here in australia) charge end users either set fee's for supposedly unlimited access at a maximum data rate, or fees based on how much they download. big wensites like google pay other isp's (or set up their own equipment) fees based on how much bandwidth is used by the website. in this setup, it should be obvious that any costs for users bandwidth should be covered by the fees charged them, NO MATTER THE CONTENT BEING VIEWED (its all just bits to an ISP), and beyond paying the bandwidth costs incured by its webhosting company (plus extra for profit of course), a website should not have to pay any other isp for data transfered through that isp's net:
They are ALREADY being payed for it by the end user downloading said data.
any arguments of "unexpectedly heavy bandwidth use" are rediculous, implying(and this is in fact generally true) that the ISP is engaging in a kind of false advertising, whereby you pay for an "unlimited download x mb/s connection" but are infact recieving an "x mb/s maximum, not garaunteed, download limited depending on how other people are downloading/ how overloaded our pipe is/ any other reason we pullout our &%$&.
The situation is analogous to signing a contract for unlimited electricity usage at a maximum 4 KW with a power company (no i've never heard of such a contract either), only to find that your entire street of 20 houses (on similar contract) only has a 6KW powerline supplying it, so if you and your neighbours both try to run a 4KW airconditioner your screwed. the power company then wants the airconditioner manufacturer to pay them as well for using too much power. Its rediculous, any costs incurred in supplying the electricity should be covered by the contract, and if they arent, thats the power companys (or ISP's in the real world) own bad luck for bad business planning (and signing a contract they never inteded to honour).
I have no problem with the isp charging users a cost per kb, if thats the obvious upfront deal (and if they can get users to sign up) but this cost and this alone should cover the isps costs for supplying this user. They should not expect a webservice provider not directly connected to them to pay them simply because the data travels over their net, THATS WHAT THE END USER IS PAYING THEM FOR!.
anyway apologies if this is not what you were talking about.
"first assume a working space-elevator"
(dont get me wrong, I think we'll get one eventually)
this attitude that the government is bumbling fools (well some of them are) and therefore any conspiracy is impossible is VERY dangerous and very false. when I claim conspiracy, I'm not talking about dubya organsing a massive attack all by himself (in fact I would guess that for plausable deniability, he had no IDEA what the plans would actually entail, just that there would be some sort of attack, and he probably assumed it would be on the scale of the previous wtc bombing or perhaps the oklahoma bombing at the most). Try to follow my line of reasoning:
We KNOW that the CIA and government officials strongly believed that an attack on this scale could be carried out and kept secret, because they presented a similar plan to JFK back in the sixties (operation northwood), and have a long record of decieving the US populace on a large scale (try to find original news footage of the oklahoma bombing where EVERYONE reported secnd and third unexploded explosive devices found by the police/fbi, then look at the official story now: one truck bomb, or look up pearl harbour (hint it was no surprise attack)). you might argue that it would be harder to keep secret now with the net and "better" news coverage, but with 40 years of "conspiracy nutjob" and "questioning the government is unpatriotic" dirven into the publics mind, along with MUCH tighter media control (the entire mainstream media is now owned by a handfull of multi national companies, often huge millitary contractors (eg GE -NBC ) or relatives of people in the administration (such as bush's cousin at fox: the one who announced he'd won the election when he obviously hadn't, and won him the entire "election") it is actually a lot easier now(people, including me, have a very strong association in our heads between the word conspiracy and being crazy/or at best "interesting but probably not true" and feel that only "conspiracy nuts" would bother to look into it)
We know that even when large numbers of people question the truth of something, the mainstream media can and does ignore it (if they are told to) for example, 50% of new-yorkers believe that the government knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen, yet there is no independant inquiry, no mainstream news DEMANDING another look at the issue etc (take a close, or even cursory, look at who was on the official "investigation" board, and look at their connections. Basically the suspects investigated themselves and declared themselves innocent (of everything it seems, even incompetence)). Many are too brainwashed to see it, and those that do, see how innefectual it was when others have come out and said anything, and how they were treated, lives ruined, fired etc (plus of course if they had any hard evidence of a conspiracy involving 3000 murders, whats one more?): look at the the guy from UL, he wrote a single letter which made a lot of sense, was fired (well he did act as if he was representing the companies views, but if he was under the impression his company HAD certified the steel, then he was really defending his company), he's been fired, picked on as a kook, and god knows what else. I doubt he'll be able to get a similar job for quite quite a while. Or look at john o'neil, the bin-laden expert who died as the head of wtc security, very conveniently, after being subject to a smear campaign for a year. Even the guy that "found" him was sus (ie if there was a conspiracy he was a likely insider)(have a google for him, and read this to start although its more related to bin laden than o'neil).
We also know that government agencies can keep secrets. how many people knew about stealth bombers before the official release. I dont mean thought maybe. oh sure the conspiracy sites talked about it, just like they talk about 9/11. and some people knew they existed, from reading about it, but mainstream news didnt talk about it as fact. You may have acce
we are not talking about controling a plane in the air, we are talking about powerdiving down from a fair altitude while turning a sharp corner, then skimming along low enough to clip cars and power poles without touching the ground, for hundreds of metres, at full speed/power, directly into a building. and after all that effort, hitting the only section which was almost empty of military personel due to blast proofing renovations, all after having failed to pass a simple flight test to hire a cessna a few weeks before.
and if you watch the video, youll wonder just exactly where that plane is? (I thought planes had wings, and a tail, and arent just small white tubes?)
next, I actually was doubtful of 9/11 being anything but government bungling and muslim extremist attack, but the more I looked, the harder I found it was to believe that, and currently, I can see no way that it was anything LIKE the official explanation. It was very strange analysing my own reaction to the knowledge: even though, thinking about it logically I could see there was no way the official explanation was true, It took a long time to actually accept that this was really happening (and it still doesnt quite feel real, even though I'm sure it is). It's called denial, and I remember the feeling from when my grandpa died, even though I knew he was dead, I felt it wasnt real and he was still alive (we were close).
I'm not actually an american (aussie) although I see similarities in whats happening here, but (I think...) it's no-where near as bad here yet.
straight off the bat, I would say that you are right in that many conspiracy theorists are getting wrapped up in a few little details, and not seeing the big picture. I think this is one of the biggest problems I face in trying to convince people, and one of the biggest problems the "9/11 truth" movement faces: the conspiracy movement is made up of: intelligent people who see problems with the official theories and try to find answers, people who just want to believe in a conspiracy and believe whatever they read (and pass it on), people making money/fame/having fun/etc from it, either validly (by telling the truth) or invalidly (by embellishing,/making stories up), and also, IF there actually is a conspiracy, then there are people spreading disinformation and deliberately causing confusion, for easier deniability. For this reason, It's actually quite hard to determine fact from fiction (trust me, I've tried) for some of the wilder claims, but, no matter what, just going off information available from what should be reliable sources, there is just TOO much wrong for me to blindly accept the official conspiracy theory.
Look at it this way: there are people in the world who kill for money, so while immoral, it is in fact a possible human action. The more money involved, the more likely people are to kill for it (althogh this does not apply to everyone; im sure there are many people, myself included I hope, who cannot be bought for any price). It would also appear that you have accepted that some people are capable of killing hundreds or thousands of people to make a point/get revenge, and we know from history that many leaders have been willing to sacrifice people for the "greater good", and often just for personal reasons. So we have no reason to believe that people in this goevernment would not be capable of this, especially if they could somehow twist it to seem like killing for the greater good, in their own minds, and especially if there was a LARGE amount of money and power as motive.
So given all that, what we have is a situation where we have a crime commited, and two current suspects. unfortunately, one of those suspects is the one pointing the finger at the other suspect, and, if guilty, is also in the position to tamper with evidence, kill witnesses, and influence the media. So the solution seems to be to just step back and look for motive, means, opportunity, and evidence for the two suspects.
Some people believe that since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we should not even entertain the idea of a conspiracy unless presented with hard evidence. While I personally believe that this evidence is obvious to those looking, my main point would be, what about the extraordinary claims of the offical theory? Here are just a few of the extraordinary claims (in my opinion) that the offical theory makes that should require extraordinary evidence:
- that it is possible for (seemingly) well organised terrorists, many of whom were known to inteligence as such, to get into the country (with badly/incorrectly fi
I looked at the loose change video after, previously investigating 9/11 for a while, and can see that many of the CONCLUSIONS that the director seems to be/are suggesting are far fatched or not supported by the evidence. What is interesting is the footage itself, and some of the many points he makes(or tries), unfortunately there are quite a few errors in it, as I've since discovered.
What I would like to see answered are the following questions:
1) why 3 unprecedented collapses on the same day (building collapses 1, 2 and 7)? release the blueprints so that scientific studies can be PUBLICLY done (not by a government commision chaired by the very people suspected of possible wrongdoing) to determine if it is even possible for those collapses to occur the way they did. I would like to see a finite element simulation of the buildings showing exactly what would be required for those collapses to occur the way they did (esp wt7), in the time they did, and with the amount of pulverisation that they endured
2)How did mayor guiliani get warned of the first collapse (see one of my other posts)? who warned him or is this story rubbish (It was HIS words that I am refering to)
3) why did silverstein say "pull it". I do not see how his words (and I refer to the entire comment in context not just these two words)could POSSIBLY mean pulling the firefighters out. It doesnt make any sense. neither the firefighters nor the firebrigade would be an "it" in this sentence, they would be a "them. "If he did "pull it", how did they have have time to wire the building to fall, it normally takes weeks of planning and setup.
4) am I just supposed to believe the ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE chain of fortuitis events and seemingly out of character behaviour/impossible luck (for the "terrorists" not us)letting this occur had NOTHING to do with people like Dick Cheney who are connected to these events all over the place: examples: (and yes, I'd like better sources on some of these, but most seem valid)
- terrorists get into country with wrongly filled out forms, shouldnt have been let in
- terrorists bahaved strangely for supposed muslim extremists: reports of partying at strip clubs etc
- 100% success rate in getting onto planes with knifes(boxcutters), even though some were so disorganised as to be LATE for the planes they were supposed to catch
- 100% (initial) success rate in capturing the cockpits, while taking over from millitary veteran pilots: not even any hijack warning codes put in
- just luck that guns were no longer allowed to be carried by the cabin crew for security, as of that year(who changed this rule and what was the justification?)
- just INCREDIBLE EXTRAORDINARY luck that multiple millitary exercises (traced back to dick cheney I believe) were running on that day, involving hijacked planes flying into buildings and other interesting coincidences, creating a situation where almost no one, in the faa or millitary, knew what the hell was going on until too late, and there were very few planes left that could do anything if they did know
- just incredibly lucky that the pilots who finally did get scrambled where not told of the entire situation (they werent told much at all it seems) and only flew at a small fraction of their maximum speeds, and also whoever was instructing them seemingly ignored the possiblility of these jets going after the pentagon plane - just incredible luck that the pentagon "didnt" fire their anti aircraft missiles(are these made up? someone tell me these are made up, otherwise why didnt they (supposedly) fire) or scramble nearby jets after knowing what was going on because of the tower strikes
- just insanely lucky that the hijacker pilots were skillful enough to pull of insanely difficult manouvres when some had trouble even landing a cessna (eg diving down and turning round at 500 mile an hour, to find him
I've been researching for some time and no, i've never heard of it. If you did, then it seems you're the only one :) perhaps a computer simulation? on a fuzzy TV? while drunk? and sleepy? (got nothing)
Next we have a witness who saw a millitary helicopter, from the far side of the building, and it went towards the helipad near the crash site just before the fireball. Only one witness (as far as I know) but its not like you could confuse a plane with a helicopter all that easily and it was coming from the far (hidden from freeway) side. Relevance? unsure. possibility given later
Next we have millitary trained personal claiming to have smelled cordite (explosives), witnesses who claimed the airoplane blew up before impact, witnesses who saw a missile, and a damage pattern more consistant with a combination missile/explosives strike than a plane crash. We also have a video showing:
- no recognizable airplane: the one frame that shows a small white thing doesnt look like a jumbo jet to me (but could be...maybe): wrong size/shape/thickness but its hard to tell. It looks like a missile to me though.
- Fireball is COMPLETELY wrong for a jet crash... isn't it? am I the only one noticing this? a jet traveling at 500 miles per hour flies smack into a building and the resulting fireball looks perfectly symetrical around a vertical center line? not splayed out as I would expect? can someone explain this cos I cant see it
- some people have raised doubts about its authenticity: to do with shadows, lighting, what looks like editing of the colours in one frame (talking about older release here). Me- I think its probably mostly real, but question what it shows, and REALLY would like to know if there is no conspiracy, then why has the other footage not been released, and why did this take so long?
My theory? there was a plane (remote controlled, maybe the original, maybe not) and it was somehow exploded before impact (perhaps the helicopter shot missiles at it? I doubt they would be powerful enough but dont know, or it already had explosives on board, or the anti arcraft missile battery actuallly worked but they havent told us). or maybe overflew the building and kept out of view (Im doubtful of this one, but otheriwse where is all the wreckage?) I think there was a missile involved (either in blowing up the plane before impact or causing some of the damage- wintesses saw it) I'm a bit thrown off by the fireball. It doesnt fit with what I imagine should have happened in a pure plane crash (why symmetrical?) but also cordite is almost smokeless and flashless and so couldnt have caused it. there is the strangely almost perfect edge of the hole supposedly knocked out by part of the airplane (it seems looking at that website that that may have just been a mistake and it was really an access hole made for emergency workers: makes more sense)
ok so what are we left with? confusion. And I think thats likely one of the main purposes of the attack at the pentagon: confusion and misdirection. Get conspiracy theorists confused and making up wild speculation, including the speculation that there wasn't a plane, and most people will just assume they are nuts, cos 40 people saw the plane. maybe the people involved werent sure they could count on the plane not getting shot down at the last minute (eg by the aa missiles), so set up explosives just in case? this particular conspiracy is generally thought NOT to have deeply involved the military in the planning and execution, with the bush administration, CIA and others involved probably relying on confusion due to the wargames and key personel who were in on it to dupe the millitary into letting it happen, which also explains flight 93 getting shot down (not everyone went along with it...)
If he was right about the company certifying the steel, it implies one of two things: a massive conspiracy OR (massive) failure to properly test the steel.
IF massive conspiracy, then why not a little bit more to get him fired and completely deny responsibility (the alternative would be trying to prove the U.S. government was lying about the cause of the failures, most likely in court, while defending themselves from criminal negligence charges). They would likely take the easy way out, fire him, shift the blame and deny responsibility, with the blessing and probably cash of the conspiriteurs.
If they actually failed to certify the steel they were supposed to, they would be guilty of negligence resulting in thousands of deaths so again, would try to deny it and fire him.
If he was wrong, about them certifying it, but right about his calculations of the impossibility of the official explanation, they would probably still fire him for going against the official theory while claiming to act as a company rep, and casting their company in a bad light.
If he was totally wrong, then they would fire him for any number of reasons, which shouldnt need pointing out.
So him being fired is irrelevant to the truth of his claims. the only thing that is relevant is whether the arguments in his letter are valid, and as far as I can tell, they are. plus certified or not, you would hope that the steel used would be close to passing that spec, if that was a common spec used at the time, and since most iron/steel has similar melting points/behaviour (I am not a blacksmith, buit see earlier blacksmiths comments for someone who is) it doesnt matter much anyway, his point still stands that the heat shouldnt have caused the collapse as hydrocarbon fires not forcefed (preheated?)air (or better yet oxygen) in ideal (no heat loss, stoichiometric oxygen/fuel mix) conditions dont get anywhere near hot enough to cause the melted steel visible before/after the collapse, nor to weaken the steel below it's 600% overengineered safety margin as claimed (especially the giant heatsink that the center column basically was) and especially not in an hour!.
On the topic of the ASTM E119 fire test for materials in the building, even the official report doesn't seem to deny that the materials were tested, just questions the usefulness of the test (see herepage 18, if you find a denial in this, let me know)
your are wrong (if three word denials count as coherant arguments, as you seem to think, then you just lost)
really? any links? that would exlain a lot (although it seems unlikely)