If you really wanna help this guy you should consult a therapist or a 12-step group. Not a website that bills itself as "News for nerds".
Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, lots of people on this site have gone through similar obsessions with video games, it seems logical to me to expect they could maybe offer advice and guidance on how best to approach the situation and help the person re-engage real life. Of course, if money is no object, then they could book some time with a real therapist and take it to the next level, but we're not talking about a heroin addict here. Maybe some helpful advice can help him beat the problem without taking such serious steps.
Seriously, if these games are this addictive, the next thing that's got to happen is a massive tobacco style lawsuit and cash settlement.
This was exactly the theme of this week's episode of "Boston Legal." A kid played a game for 2 days straight without eating, drinking, or sleeping, and ended up dying from heart failure. The mother sued the game company and lost. Good episode.
Gambling isn't a chemical addiction either, but it's just as damaging as alcohol and drugs, and needs to be treated the same.
Comparing a gambling addiction to a heroin addiction is both ignorant and incredibly insulting to real addicts. There is no comparison. Heroin addicts can think of nothing else. It runs their lives. They'd sell their baby for their next hit.
Gambling addicts simply have addictive, compulsive personalities. There's no Betty Ford Clinic for gambling addicts, and there's a reason. It's not even in the same league as drug addicts.
you disagree with all reasonable peer reviewed science about addiction and claim its not a disease?
I feel compelled to remind you of the (very controversial) South Park episode in which a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeds. That's the episode in which Stan's Dad (Randy Marsh) learns that he is an alcoholic, and alcoholism is a disease. Randy despairs that his disease will kill him, and there's nothing he can do about it. He goes to the statue of the Virgin Mary to pray to be cured, and believes it works. He lives clean and sober, until he finds out that the bleeding statue was in fact not a miracle. He concludes that he must not actually be cured, and therefore still has "alcoholism". He immediately relapses and begins drinking again, believing he'll never be free of his disease.
It is a cartoon, but nevertheless is poignant, and makes a good point. One exchange in the episode is particularly relevant, when one character claims that alcoholism is a disease, and Stan replies, "No, cancer is a disease. My dad just needs to drink less."
Most modern aircraft are already equipped with auto-takeoff, auto-pilot (cruise), and auto-land. What more do you need?
This is incorrect. "Modern aircraft" (I assume we're talking about commercial passenger aviation here) cannot take off and land on their own. "Auto pilot," while very useful in relieving pilots of the drudgery of the uneventful portions of the flight, are actually quite limited in their capabilities. They can fly from point-to-point, they can hold and change altitude at predetermined times. However, they cannot recognize when they may encounter icing. Or when they need to vector themselves around weather. Or handle any eventuality that is remotely unusual (medical emergency, unruly passenger, decompression problems, hydraulic problems, fuel leaks, clear-air-turbulence). Such things are trivial for an actual pilot to manage.
The take-off is always done by actual pilots, because a lot can go wrong, and a pilot needs to have complete situational awareness at all times during this critical portion of the flight. Also, tolerances for mistakes are much lower on the ground than in the air. If the airplane is 50 feet left of where it should be when cruising at 25,000 feet, that's fine. But if it's on the runway, rolling along at 70 mph, getting ready to rotate, then it just plowed through 2 dozen runway lights and possibly an airplane holding on a taxiway.
Landing is equally sensitive. Modern GPS and ILS/localizer approaches are remarkably accurate, and can guide the airplane down to within 50 feet of the runway threshold in even the thickest fog. But a computer doesn't know how to flare in a 30 knot, 35 degree crosswind. We still need pilots for that last 50 feet.
Apple don't distribute any physical music, not sheet music, not discs, not vinyl, not tapes.
Apple's iTunes music store sells music. We all know that when you buy music, you're buying intellectual property (a "license" to listen to a creative work), not just a physical disc of aluminum and plastic. Isn't that why so many people here on Slashdot complain that when they buy a CD/DVD, and their kid wrecks it, they should be entitled to another copy, free of charge? Now, you're saying that record labels sell physical media, not the creative work itself? Which is it?
The problem with your theory is that it requires the cooperation and secrecy of hundreds of people outside the government. Such as:
The airline executives themselves who are sacrificing expensive airplanes and pilots
The pilots themselves who divert the planes (with passengers and crew) to wherever the government will "dispose" of them. Effectively committing suicide.
The air traffic controllers, who must somehow forge and lie about radar tracks and radio conversation records for the flights in question.
The demolition experts employed to carry out the precise, deliberate destruction of the WTC towers and Pentagon.
Building security at the towers, who must've had to look the other way while these explosives were set up. And then show up for work on the day they knew the buildings would be destroyed. Like the pilots, effectively committing suicide.
Why would all these people play along, when in many cases, it meant their own deaths? These are not top-secret, covert, CIA/NSA/FBI/military operatives we're talking about. I could maybe buy that those guys would play along and keep quiet in the name of "patriotism." But why the airline execs? The air traffic controllers? Why wouldn't someone have come forward with a story supporting your crazy assertions?
This is way too long, and you've not credibly refuted anything I've said, so I'll post without Karma bonus to try and avoid the wrath of the mods.
Because in the documentary [...], [Larry Silverstein] made the following statement: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I'm not disputing that he said that (although I suspect he said "pull out," not "pull it"). But it is YOU and the website that are making the completely unsupported assumption that "pull it" means "demolish." In fact, when you read it in context, such an assumption doesn't even make sense. Why would he justify proactively demolishing it by saying "we've had such a terrible loss of life" already? Why not just evacuate to save lives, and wait and see if the building can be salvaged when the fire burns itself out? How would evacuating and then deliberately blowing it up save any lives? Don't you see? It makes no sense.
If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period.
You're illustrating my point for me exactly. This is exactly why the building architects were so surprised by the fact that they did collapse from fire. Everybody thought that was impossible. The steel frames of the buildings were coated with insulating foam to prevent exactly this scenario from playing out. But what they hadn't counted on was the fact that the buildings' ages and poor maintenance would effectively erase the safety built into the design. Again, I cite the documentary Why The Towers Fell for a very thorough and insightful explanation of how things transpired on that fateful day.
And the reason that those 3 buildings were the first 3 steel-framed buildings ever to collapse from fire is because they were all designed the same flawed way (as have been many more since then that thankfully haven't had massive fires to test them).
The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts.
Quit with the red herring. The "energy of the airliner impacts" had nothing to do with it. It was the heat from the fire that brought down the buildings. The buildings did withstand the impact of the airliners, just as they should have.
In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building.
First of all, it was a B-25, not a B-52. The B-52 hadn't even been invented yet, and is a MUCH bigger airplane. The B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building was 53 feet long with a wingspan of 67 feet. The airliners that crashed into the twin towers were roughly 3 times as long with double the wingspan. Plus, the airliners were fully loaded with fuel for a cross-continent journey, whereas the little B-25 bomber was on its way home, and thus had relatively little fuel on board.
Oops. Guess you forgot about that part, eh? But let's not get bogged down in facts. Please, continue on.
[Where are all the people who were supposedly on the non-existent AA flight 77?]
I just love it when people throw this up as an 'argument'. Their bodies have not been found, and they never will be.
That's your answer? They existed, but they've simply vanished? All at the same time? Without anybody noticing? They were secretly diverted somewhere else and killed off in the name of freedom? I'm going to need a little more explanation than that, please. Who ordered this? Who were the people who carried it out? Why would American Airlines pilots and US military service men and women kidnap and murder innocent American citizens? A conspiracy this big would requi
Actually, the building you are referring to was WTC 7, and Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS interview shortly after 9/11 that he ordered the building to be 'pulled'. More details can be found here.
Wow, what an insightful, well-researched, and thought-provoking website. I went to the main page to see what other conspiracies had been covered up by the US government, and once I scrolled past the obviously legitimate banner ads for Ephedra, Viagra, and penny stocks, I found all sorts of op-ed diatribes based on shaky and unverifiable claims.
WTC 7 was not slated for demolition. It was not wired with explosives. It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed. TLC (a reputable media outlet, unlike the whacko nutjob websites that come up with you search for "WTC 7 collapse") mentioned the collapse of WTC 7 in their documentary about why the towers collapsed. Officials were surprised and disturbed that buildling 7 collapsed, seemingly on its own, and learned a lot from the experience. The events revealed that conventional construction wisdom wasn't as reliable as builders had assumed, and they learned principles which they used to improve the safety of other buildings.
If, as you and all these other Area-51 crazies assert, WTC 7 was deliberately razed, you haven't answered "why?" I also love some of the other peer links that come up when "researching" your claims, like this gem: "Come on folks, no planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01."
Demolition experts immediately went on record as saying that such a collapse as a result of an airliner strike was flatly impossible,
If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?
With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist. That is, you ask the wrong questions, make the wrong assumptions, and ignore obvious counter evidence.
For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?
Also, simply research the flight plans for that day. FAA flight plans are public record. See if Flight 77 actually existed. Or dig up the tax records for American Airlines and see if they actually owned a 757 with the registration number matching the one that "allegedly" hit the Pentagon. Where did that massive airplane go, if not the Pentagon?
As for your ridiculous claims that there was no fire, there most certainly and obviously was. It penetrated several layers deep into the rings of the Pentagon. Media and photographers could only photograph the outside. Or are you surprised that large amounts of media members were denied access to the flaming, chaotic top-secret inner rings of the Pentagon in the middle of a massive terrorist attack on the US?
Finally, let me also address this assumption that many people make regarding impact holes. People seem to think that an airplane should punch right through walls. The truth is, airplanes are actually light, fragile tubes of thin metal. Take a piece of paper and roll it up like a paper towel tube. Now smash it down onto the top of your desk. Did it go through? Did it even lea
I agree with everything you said, but this number is much, much too small. The actual deficit in the US budget for 2005 was $427 billion, not $9 billion.
I think you're thinking of the total debt cap which was just raised to $9 trillion. That's the total amount they can go into debt, not just a single year-over-year shortfall. That's such a mind-bogglingly huge number that it helps to actually type it out to get the full impact. $9,000,000,000,000. A 9, followed by 12 zeroes. That's about $30,000 for every single person in the USA. That's how much debt Bush is comfortable with.
Before this thread is consumed by non-lawyers editorializing about what a legal travesty this is, let me first put forth a question: If this argument was about the term "Superman" instead of "Superhero," would it be any less absurd? I mean, surely we'll all agree that "Superman" is a clearly trademarkable name, and has been capitalized on by its creators for decades. But isn't the coined word "Superman" just as generic as the coined word "Superhero?" Aren't they both merely the concatenation of two relatively common words in the English language?
Let's just admit that they've created something new, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to wish to protect their exclusive use of their creations.
I haven't looked up any references, so the figures are off the top of my head, but keep in mind that the Space Shuttle lands at roughly twice the speed of the fastest commercial airliner. The shuttle, as I recall, lands at somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 mph, whereas most Boeings and Airbuses float over the threshold at no more than 150 mph. Someone pickier than me will post the actual numbers. But my point is that such a dramatically higher landing speed requires a lot longer runway.
companies are actively polluting rivers, lakes and land
Add it all up, and it spells "you lose." But since I'm sure you'll need more convincing than simply pointing out you desperately used several logical fallacies to shore up your specious argument, let me ask you a question.
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe. You get points based on how many Jews you gas. You and your friends all play this game and think it's funny. You joke with each other about "offing Jews" and such. Do you not think it's remotely possible that some people might actually start believing that Jews are somehow a lesser people? Or at the very least, don't you admit that Jewish people overhearing your "joking" might be offended, particularly if they or their relatives lived through the holocaust?
"Screw 'em," right? After all, people were gassing Jews long before this fictitious game came out, "so what would removing the game do? NOTHING!"
Nothing's stopping you from writing your own article about the great inventions of Great White Males or whatever.
Well, nothing except the fact that it would take me the rest of my life. The sheer number of scientific accomplishments credited to white males is incredibly overwhelming in both magnitude and importance. Everything from the splitting of the atom, to the invention of flight, space travel, transistor technology, computers, modern medicine... it never ends. And that's just science! I can't even imagine how long it would take to enumerate the contributions white males have made to the art world. From music (Bach, Mozart, Wagner, all the way back to Gregorian Chanting, and all the way forward to the revolutionary Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kurt Cobain), to painting (Picasso, Da Vinci), photography (Ansel Adams), architecture (Frank Lloyd Wright), in virtually every field, the pinnacle of achievement is held by a white male.
The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.
Whoops, I overstated this. I was referring mainly to recent (last 200 years) accomplishments in the Western world, primarily scientific in nature. Obviously, straight white males didn't build the Great Wall of China, but they did play golf on the moon.
There's no way to say this without sounding racist/sexist/homophobic, but I wonder if I'll live to see the day when it's considered "acceptable" to be proud of straight, male, caucasian heritage. That's not to say I think there's anything to be proud of, but rather that it's interesting how we have all these parades, celebrations, "history" months, and special exhibits for the accomplishments of all the various configurations of gender, race, and religion, except straight, white, Christian male. The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males. However, it's considered inappropriate to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
The irony is that while I find it both interesting and disappointing that society continues to congratulate everyone else for the advances and achievements of their respective genders and races, I find it simultaneously hollow and pointless. How can you be proud of something someone else did, when the only thing(s) you have in common with those people are physical/geographical attributes over which you had no control anyway? How can you be proud of something you had no control over? Am I proud to be "white?" Not at all. It required no effort on my part, thus it can hardly be considered an "accomplishment."
Nevertheless, people will continue to congratulate each other over such arbitrary attributes, while straight white males stand at the sidelines with their mouths shut, lest they be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or just generally discriminatory.
Are we going to argue the definition of "blow up?" The original poster depicted terrorists as incompetent, and reasoned that they were unsuccessful in carrying out a plot to destroy the WTC. I countered that they were in fact successful in both inserting and detonating a large explosive device that actually killed several people. If they'd simply made the bomb bigger, the building would likely have collapsed. But it's not like they got caught before they could acquire, assemble, or deliver the bomb. They were successful.
In your example, it was good, because it was amusing. I don't mind those kind of product placements. Likewise, I don't mind catching a glimpse of a Pepsi vending machine in the background, or noticing that the protagonist is driving a BMW, because hey, he's got to drive something, and they have Pepsi machines in the real world, so why not.
What bothers me are blatant, shameless plugs that serve no other purpose. Like "iRobot," for example, when Will Smith makes a point of showing off his "vintage" Converse shoes that are totally out of place in the future world, and serve no other purpose in the plot. There's absolutely no reason for the director to devote 30 - 45 seconds to making sure the audience knows that Will Smith is wearing Converse shoes. Maybe if it came up later in the film, and they ended up saving his life (where regular, period shoes would have failed him), I could forgive it, but IIRC, they never came up again. He devoted 1/120th of the film to making sure we knew Will wore Cons, then left it at that.
I quite buying CDs around 2000. I was sick and tired of the outrageous prices that they were charging.
$15 for an hour's worth of music you can enjoy over and over, as many times as you want, in high-quality digital sound, then sell the CD to someone else when you finally tire of it, is "outrageous?"
Ever been to the opera? Ballet? Any pro sports event? Methinks you should get some perspective.
Blame then goes to the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana who thought that using the Superdome as a shelter was a Good Idea and then not equiping and stocking the Superdome as a shelter.
The Superdome was a good shelter. The hurricane didn't kill one single person in the Superdome. It held up against the storm, and did exactly what city planners hoped it would do. The problem was that people were supposed to be in it for no more than 18 - 24 hours, and "wait out" the storm, then go home. The levees weren't supposed to break, the city wasn't supposed to flood, and the Superdome wasn't supposed to house all those people for weeks on end.
But it was a good idea at the time. It was certainly safer than leaving those thousands of people in their homes to weather the hurricane, which most certainly would have killed a great deal of people. They stood a much better chance in the Superdome.
There were many bad and inept decisions made leading up to, and immediately after Katrina hit. But sheltering poor people in the Superdome wasn't one of them.
terrorism has rarely been about killing people, in the same way that war has rarely been about killing people.
Wow, you hit the nail solidly on the head. Terrorism isn't about killing people, it's about scaring people (or, more precisely, "terrorizing" people). To that end, one could easily argue that with all the fanatical paranoia and color-coded terror-alert levels, the facist and invasive legislation being heaped upon the masses by the body-politic, and the constant fear-mongering by the media, the terrorists have been far, far more successful than if they had spent the last 5 years blowing up buildings.
They want us to be scared. Bush and the media are playing right along, and using it to make their friends rich.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really wanna help this guy you should consult a therapist or a 12-step group. Not a website that bills itself as "News for nerds".
Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, lots of people on this site have gone through similar obsessions with video games, it seems logical to me to expect they could maybe offer advice and guidance on how best to approach the situation and help the person re-engage real life. Of course, if money is no object, then they could book some time with a real therapist and take it to the next level, but we're not talking about a heroin addict here. Maybe some helpful advice can help him beat the problem without taking such serious steps.
Seriously, if these games are this addictive, the next thing that's got to happen is a massive tobacco style lawsuit and cash settlement.
This was exactly the theme of this week's episode of "Boston Legal." A kid played a game for 2 days straight without eating, drinking, or sleeping, and ended up dying from heart failure. The mother sued the game company and lost. Good episode.
Gambling isn't a chemical addiction either, but it's just as damaging as alcohol and drugs, and needs to be treated the same.
Comparing a gambling addiction to a heroin addiction is both ignorant and incredibly insulting to real addicts. There is no comparison. Heroin addicts can think of nothing else. It runs their lives. They'd sell their baby for their next hit.
Gambling addicts simply have addictive, compulsive personalities. There's no Betty Ford Clinic for gambling addicts, and there's a reason. It's not even in the same league as drug addicts.
you disagree with all reasonable peer reviewed science about addiction and claim its not a disease?
I feel compelled to remind you of the (very controversial) South Park episode in which a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeds. That's the episode in which Stan's Dad (Randy Marsh) learns that he is an alcoholic, and alcoholism is a disease. Randy despairs that his disease will kill him, and there's nothing he can do about it. He goes to the statue of the Virgin Mary to pray to be cured, and believes it works. He lives clean and sober, until he finds out that the bleeding statue was in fact not a miracle. He concludes that he must not actually be cured, and therefore still has "alcoholism". He immediately relapses and begins drinking again, believing he'll never be free of his disease.
It is a cartoon, but nevertheless is poignant, and makes a good point. One exchange in the episode is particularly relevant, when one character claims that alcoholism is a disease, and Stan replies, "No, cancer is a disease. My dad just needs to drink less."
Most modern aircraft are already equipped with auto-takeoff, auto-pilot (cruise), and auto-land. What more do you need?
This is incorrect. "Modern aircraft" (I assume we're talking about commercial passenger aviation here) cannot take off and land on their own. "Auto pilot," while very useful in relieving pilots of the drudgery of the uneventful portions of the flight, are actually quite limited in their capabilities. They can fly from point-to-point, they can hold and change altitude at predetermined times. However, they cannot recognize when they may encounter icing. Or when they need to vector themselves around weather. Or handle any eventuality that is remotely unusual (medical emergency, unruly passenger, decompression problems, hydraulic problems, fuel leaks, clear-air-turbulence). Such things are trivial for an actual pilot to manage.
The take-off is always done by actual pilots, because a lot can go wrong, and a pilot needs to have complete situational awareness at all times during this critical portion of the flight. Also, tolerances for mistakes are much lower on the ground than in the air. If the airplane is 50 feet left of where it should be when cruising at 25,000 feet, that's fine. But if it's on the runway, rolling along at 70 mph, getting ready to rotate, then it just plowed through 2 dozen runway lights and possibly an airplane holding on a taxiway.
Landing is equally sensitive. Modern GPS and ILS/localizer approaches are remarkably accurate, and can guide the airplane down to within 50 feet of the runway threshold in even the thickest fog. But a computer doesn't know how to flare in a 30 knot, 35 degree crosswind. We still need pilots for that last 50 feet.
Apple don't distribute any physical music, not sheet music, not discs, not vinyl, not tapes.
Apple's iTunes music store sells music. We all know that when you buy music, you're buying intellectual property (a "license" to listen to a creative work), not just a physical disc of aluminum and plastic. Isn't that why so many people here on Slashdot complain that when they buy a CD/DVD, and their kid wrecks it, they should be entitled to another copy, free of charge? Now, you're saying that record labels sell physical media, not the creative work itself? Which is it?
The whole record industry moved into computers though.
So? They never promised not to. On the other hand, Apple, a computer company, did promise never to move into the music industry.
Why would all these people play along, when in many cases, it meant their own deaths? These are not top-secret, covert, CIA/NSA/FBI/military operatives we're talking about. I could maybe buy that those guys would play along and keep quiet in the name of "patriotism." But why the airline execs? The air traffic controllers? Why wouldn't someone have come forward with a story supporting your crazy assertions?
This is way too long, and you've not credibly refuted anything I've said, so I'll post without Karma bonus to try and avoid the wrath of the mods.
Because in the documentary [...], [Larry Silverstein] made the following statement: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I'm not disputing that he said that (although I suspect he said "pull out," not "pull it"). But it is YOU and the website that are making the completely unsupported assumption that "pull it" means "demolish." In fact, when you read it in context, such an assumption doesn't even make sense. Why would he justify proactively demolishing it by saying "we've had such a terrible loss of life" already? Why not just evacuate to save lives, and wait and see if the building can be salvaged when the fire burns itself out? How would evacuating and then deliberately blowing it up save any lives? Don't you see? It makes no sense.
If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period.
You're illustrating my point for me exactly. This is exactly why the building architects were so surprised by the fact that they did collapse from fire. Everybody thought that was impossible. The steel frames of the buildings were coated with insulating foam to prevent exactly this scenario from playing out. But what they hadn't counted on was the fact that the buildings' ages and poor maintenance would effectively erase the safety built into the design. Again, I cite the documentary Why The Towers Fell for a very thorough and insightful explanation of how things transpired on that fateful day.
And the reason that those 3 buildings were the first 3 steel-framed buildings ever to collapse from fire is because they were all designed the same flawed way (as have been many more since then that thankfully haven't had massive fires to test them).
The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts.
Quit with the red herring. The "energy of the airliner impacts" had nothing to do with it. It was the heat from the fire that brought down the buildings. The buildings did withstand the impact of the airliners, just as they should have.
In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building.
First of all, it was a B-25, not a B-52. The B-52 hadn't even been invented yet, and is a MUCH bigger airplane. The B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building was 53 feet long with a wingspan of 67 feet. The airliners that crashed into the twin towers were roughly 3 times as long with double the wingspan. Plus, the airliners were fully loaded with fuel for a cross-continent journey, whereas the little B-25 bomber was on its way home, and thus had relatively little fuel on board.
Oops. Guess you forgot about that part, eh? But let's not get bogged down in facts. Please, continue on.
[Where are all the people who were supposedly on the non-existent AA flight 77?]
I just love it when people throw this up as an 'argument'. Their bodies have not been found, and they never will be.
That's your answer? They existed, but they've simply vanished? All at the same time? Without anybody noticing? They were secretly diverted somewhere else and killed off in the name of freedom? I'm going to need a little more explanation than that, please. Who ordered this? Who were the people who carried it out? Why would American Airlines pilots and US military service men and women kidnap and murder innocent American citizens? A conspiracy this big would requi
Actually, the building you are referring to was WTC 7, and Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS interview shortly after 9/11 that he ordered the building to be 'pulled'. More details can be found here.
Wow, what an insightful, well-researched, and thought-provoking website. I went to the main page to see what other conspiracies had been covered up by the US government, and once I scrolled past the obviously legitimate banner ads for Ephedra, Viagra, and penny stocks, I found all sorts of op-ed diatribes based on shaky and unverifiable claims.
WTC 7 was not slated for demolition. It was not wired with explosives. It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed. TLC (a reputable media outlet, unlike the whacko nutjob websites that come up with you search for "WTC 7 collapse") mentioned the collapse of WTC 7 in their documentary about why the towers collapsed. Officials were surprised and disturbed that buildling 7 collapsed, seemingly on its own, and learned a lot from the experience. The events revealed that conventional construction wisdom wasn't as reliable as builders had assumed, and they learned principles which they used to improve the safety of other buildings.
If, as you and all these other Area-51 crazies assert, WTC 7 was deliberately razed, you haven't answered "why?" I also love some of the other peer links that come up when "researching" your claims, like this gem: "Come on folks, no planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01."
Demolition experts immediately went on record as saying that such a collapse as a result of an airliner strike was flatly impossible,
If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?
With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist. That is, you ask the wrong questions, make the wrong assumptions, and ignore obvious counter evidence.
For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?
Also, simply research the flight plans for that day. FAA flight plans are public record. See if Flight 77 actually existed. Or dig up the tax records for American Airlines and see if they actually owned a 757 with the registration number matching the one that "allegedly" hit the Pentagon. Where did that massive airplane go, if not the Pentagon?
As for your ridiculous claims that there was no fire, there most certainly and obviously was. It penetrated several layers deep into the rings of the Pentagon. Media and photographers could only photograph the outside. Or are you surprised that large amounts of media members were denied access to the flaming, chaotic top-secret inner rings of the Pentagon in the middle of a massive terrorist attack on the US?
Finally, let me also address this assumption that many people make regarding impact holes. People seem to think that an airplane should punch right through walls. The truth is, airplanes are actually light, fragile tubes of thin metal. Take a piece of paper and roll it up like a paper towel tube. Now smash it down onto the top of your desk. Did it go through? Did it even lea
but the deficit is now nine billion dollars
I agree with everything you said, but this number is much, much too small. The actual deficit in the US budget for 2005 was $427 billion, not $9 billion.
I think you're thinking of the total debt cap which was just raised to $9 trillion. That's the total amount they can go into debt, not just a single year-over-year shortfall. That's such a mind-bogglingly huge number that it helps to actually type it out to get the full impact. $9,000,000,000,000. A 9, followed by 12 zeroes. That's about $30,000 for every single person in the USA. That's how much debt Bush is comfortable with.
Before this thread is consumed by non-lawyers editorializing about what a legal travesty this is, let me first put forth a question: If this argument was about the term "Superman" instead of "Superhero," would it be any less absurd? I mean, surely we'll all agree that "Superman" is a clearly trademarkable name, and has been capitalized on by its creators for decades. But isn't the coined word "Superman" just as generic as the coined word "Superhero?" Aren't they both merely the concatenation of two relatively common words in the English language?
Let's just admit that they've created something new, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to wish to protect their exclusive use of their creations.
I haven't looked up any references, so the figures are off the top of my head, but keep in mind that the Space Shuttle lands at roughly twice the speed of the fastest commercial airliner. The shuttle, as I recall, lands at somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 mph, whereas most Boeings and Airbuses float over the threshold at no more than 150 mph. Someone pickier than me will post the actual numbers. But my point is that such a dramatically higher landing speed requires a lot longer runway.
argumentum ad antiquitatem (Appeal to Tradition)
hyperbole (exaggeration)
straw man
ad hominem (Attacking the Messenger)
ignoratio elenchi (Red Herring)
Add it all up, and it spells "you lose." But since I'm sure you'll need more convincing than simply pointing out you desperately used several logical fallacies to shore up your specious argument, let me ask you a question.
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe. You get points based on how many Jews you gas. You and your friends all play this game and think it's funny. You joke with each other about "offing Jews" and such. Do you not think it's remotely possible that some people might actually start believing that Jews are somehow a lesser people? Or at the very least, don't you admit that Jewish people overhearing your "joking" might be offended, particularly if they or their relatives lived through the holocaust?
"Screw 'em," right? After all, people were gassing Jews long before this fictitious game came out, "so what would removing the game do? NOTHING!"
Are you sure about that?
Nothing's stopping you from writing your own article about the great inventions of Great White Males or whatever.
Well, nothing except the fact that it would take me the rest of my life. The sheer number of scientific accomplishments credited to white males is incredibly overwhelming in both magnitude and importance. Everything from the splitting of the atom, to the invention of flight, space travel, transistor technology, computers, modern medicine... it never ends. And that's just science! I can't even imagine how long it would take to enumerate the contributions white males have made to the art world. From music (Bach, Mozart, Wagner, all the way back to Gregorian Chanting, and all the way forward to the revolutionary Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kurt Cobain), to painting (Picasso, Da Vinci), photography (Ansel Adams), architecture (Frank Lloyd Wright), in virtually every field, the pinnacle of achievement is held by a white male.
The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.
Whoops, I overstated this. I was referring mainly to recent (last 200 years) accomplishments in the Western world, primarily scientific in nature. Obviously, straight white males didn't build the Great Wall of China, but they did play golf on the moon.
There's no way to say this without sounding racist/sexist/homophobic, but I wonder if I'll live to see the day when it's considered "acceptable" to be proud of straight, male, caucasian heritage. That's not to say I think there's anything to be proud of, but rather that it's interesting how we have all these parades, celebrations, "history" months, and special exhibits for the accomplishments of all the various configurations of gender, race, and religion, except straight, white, Christian male. The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males. However, it's considered inappropriate to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
The irony is that while I find it both interesting and disappointing that society continues to congratulate everyone else for the advances and achievements of their respective genders and races, I find it simultaneously hollow and pointless. How can you be proud of something someone else did, when the only thing(s) you have in common with those people are physical/geographical attributes over which you had no control anyway? How can you be proud of something you had no control over? Am I proud to be "white?" Not at all. It required no effort on my part, thus it can hardly be considered an "accomplishment."
Nevertheless, people will continue to congratulate each other over such arbitrary attributes, while straight white males stand at the sidelines with their mouths shut, lest they be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or just generally discriminatory.
Are we going to argue the definition of "blow up?" The original poster depicted terrorists as incompetent, and reasoned that they were unsuccessful in carrying out a plot to destroy the WTC. I countered that they were in fact successful in both inserting and detonating a large explosive device that actually killed several people. If they'd simply made the bomb bigger, the building would likely have collapsed. But it's not like they got caught before they could acquire, assemble, or deliver the bomb. They were successful.
Most of the movies in there from what I heard were lower budget indie-type movies then multi-hundred million hollywood movies.
Reports show that "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith" made more money than all the Best Picture nominees COMBINED. I found that interesting.
In your example, it was good, because it was amusing. I don't mind those kind of product placements. Likewise, I don't mind catching a glimpse of a Pepsi vending machine in the background, or noticing that the protagonist is driving a BMW, because hey, he's got to drive something, and they have Pepsi machines in the real world, so why not.
What bothers me are blatant, shameless plugs that serve no other purpose. Like "iRobot," for example, when Will Smith makes a point of showing off his "vintage" Converse shoes that are totally out of place in the future world, and serve no other purpose in the plot. There's absolutely no reason for the director to devote 30 - 45 seconds to making sure the audience knows that Will Smith is wearing Converse shoes. Maybe if it came up later in the film, and they ended up saving his life (where regular, period shoes would have failed him), I could forgive it, but IIRC, they never came up again. He devoted 1/120th of the film to making sure we knew Will wore Cons, then left it at that.
That's annoying.
I quite buying CDs around 2000. I was sick and tired of the outrageous prices that they were charging.
$15 for an hour's worth of music you can enjoy over and over, as many times as you want, in high-quality digital sound, then sell the CD to someone else when you finally tire of it, is "outrageous?"
Ever been to the opera? Ballet? Any pro sports event? Methinks you should get some perspective.
Blame then goes to the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana who thought that using the Superdome as a shelter was a Good Idea and then not equiping and stocking the Superdome as a shelter.
The Superdome was a good shelter. The hurricane didn't kill one single person in the Superdome. It held up against the storm, and did exactly what city planners hoped it would do. The problem was that people were supposed to be in it for no more than 18 - 24 hours, and "wait out" the storm, then go home. The levees weren't supposed to break, the city wasn't supposed to flood, and the Superdome wasn't supposed to house all those people for weeks on end.
But it was a good idea at the time. It was certainly safer than leaving those thousands of people in their homes to weather the hurricane, which most certainly would have killed a great deal of people. They stood a much better chance in the Superdome.
There were many bad and inept decisions made leading up to, and immediately after Katrina hit. But sheltering poor people in the Superdome wasn't one of them.
Really, how hard is it to blow up a building?
Ask the perps who failed in their attempt to destroy the WTC the first time.
If I'm not mistaken, their bomb did go off. It simply wasn't big enough.
terrorism has rarely been about killing people, in the same way that war has rarely been about killing people.
Wow, you hit the nail solidly on the head. Terrorism isn't about killing people, it's about scaring people (or, more precisely, "terrorizing" people). To that end, one could easily argue that with all the fanatical paranoia and color-coded terror-alert levels, the facist and invasive legislation being heaped upon the masses by the body-politic, and the constant fear-mongering by the media, the terrorists have been far, far more successful than if they had spent the last 5 years blowing up buildings.
They want us to be scared. Bush and the media are playing right along, and using it to make their friends rich.
Sure, in Iraq and Palestine/Israel things seem bigger and more organised, but in the rest of the world it's a phantom menace.
In my dreams, Jar-Jar volunteers to be a suicide bomber.