It was secret for forty years. How long does it need to be a secret before it "counts?" A hundred years? Two hundred?
It may as well still be secret, because the only way you can find out about it is to engage in independent research--something most Americans are too busy or too indoctrinated to undertake.
I can't do the research for you. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the government was involved, on some level, in the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission report and the NIST report have been exposed as frauds by engineers and scientists (These people had nothing to gain by speaking out, unlike the experts who were willing to endorse the official version of events).
Good boy. NIST would be proud.
Let's not forget that the fire was only on a few floors. If the WTC buildings had been rotated evenly over 1800 degree barbecues for 2 hours, then maybe I'd buy the "progressive collapse theory". It's simply not possible for unfocused, random fires on a handful of floors to weaken all the steel, from the basement to the crash zone, symmetrically and cause global collapse.
p.s. it's called a forge. I have never argued that steel is invulnerable to fire.
When you share private information with a friend--that's gossip.
When you murder thousands of innocent civilians, that's a secret. And if you were involved, you're invested in keeping that secret--because you're part of the system that perpetrated it. You benefit from keeping it secret. If you blab, you're taking a risk.
If you think our government can't keep a secret, then what exactly is the purpose of top secret clearances? I suppose the CIA won't mind if I examine their files, since we know all their secrets which they are unable to keep. You think everything they do is legal? How about moral?
p.s. the Government didn't fabricate the evidence of 9/11 - they omitted, destroyed, or distorted the evidence that was present.
Since many of you are familiar with the NIST report and freely refer to it, consider this editorial written by Kevin Ryan.
Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) -- the company that tested (and disproved) the pancake theory. The progressive collapse theory, which NIST fabricated later, was based on a distortion of data provided by UL.
Although he had recently been promoted, when Kevin Ryan asked too many uncomfortable questions, he was fired.
"All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you."
I prefer to judge evidence by its validity, not by where it came from. I'll even listen to you.
"(...I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)"
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. --WIKI
As for your evidence...
Much of it attempts to discredit theories that claim the planes were not real passenger airliners, or were modified in some way. I agreed with most of what they said--I never put a lot of stock in what eyewitnesses saw, because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There are some inconsistencies with the planes that this video omitted, but I don't think I had any major objections. In my opinion, whether or not they were real planes is a minor question, compared to the rapid onset of global collapse seen in WTC 1, 2, and 7.
The official collapse theory has already been addressed elsewhere on this page, and multiple sources have been provided. Check it out. NIST's claims of 40-inch bowing were not arrived at by the scientific method. Underwriters Labs got the steel to bow 4 inches (by exposing it to higher temperatures than were present, for longer time periods), and NIST multiplied by ten. The computer "simulation" in the video is completely fraudulent, as is the attempt to measure the bowing of steel from video stills and/or distant photographs.
One of the shortcomings of digital communication is that it can be anonymous and impersonal, and even make people feel isolated from one another.
But that doesn't mean technology is to blame for the disconnection of the masses. Technology demands responsibility. Corporations and institutions have abused that responsibility by using new media to push consumerism, fear, slavery, and ignorance, all of which hinder our ability to participate fully in society. If we don't question it.
One of the really promising things about this site is it provides a free and open forum to share our views, re-evaluate them, consider alternative views, and discover common ground!
Ok, that was a bit of a straw man.
What I mean by equal in other respects is, able to explain the available data equally well.
9/11 commission report fails to explain all the data. 9/11 truth movement via controlled demolition theory, and with the support of many scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens, is able to provide plausible explanations for all the data. If a new, independent investigation were launched and funded properly, I believe it would not reach the same conclusions as the 9/11 commission did. To be blunt, 9/11 commission report defies the laws of Physics - including gravity and conservation of momentum.
The 9/11 disaster was unprecedented - all the more reason to put our faith in objective inquiry and the scientific method.
Someone posted a URL elsewhere in this debate: http://www.ae911truth.org/
I suggest you take a look. 381 architects and engineers have risked their professional reputation to ask for a new investigation. What do they have to gain? Nothing - but they have a lot to lose: professional credibility, maybe a promotion, possibly their job.... It's happened.
Yes, you can find experts who will support the 9/11 commission findings. That shouldn't be surprising, given the amount of institutional pressure to conform to the official story.
Finally, this "reverse scientific method" accusation is absurd.
9/11 truth movement has explored the most likely hypothesis - controlled demolition - and been able to support this theory by taking all the evidence into account.
It is the 9/11 commission that is guilty of a "reverse scientific method," by throwing out the hypothesis that was unacceptable (controlled demolition), and omitting data that did not fit their progressive collapse model (but is consistent with controlled demolition).
Key phrase being "equal in other respects."
According to our President, the terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom." Accepting this argument is much simpler than getting off your ass and learning the history that the U.S. has in that region. I guess that's why a lot of Americans (probably the same ones that are satisfied with the 9/11 commission report) actually believe that nonsense.
There should have been a proper investigation. Occam's Razor doesn't mean that complicated situations don't exist.
That source you linked to says that the columns fell faster than the surrounding floors: consistent with controlled demolition. In attempting to refute the collapse speed, he actually reinforces the controlled demolition theory. Regardless, no one says it fell at exactly free-fall speed. It fell at "near" free-fall speed. Like, give or take a second...that's pretty close.
This guy also "proves" that the giant pyroclastic flow didn't happen, because pyroclastic flows are a "minimum of 100 degrees C."
Pyroclastic flows, also known as gravity currents, are explained by fluid dynamics. It has nothing to do with temperature, rather with the difference in density between the flow and the surrounding air.
Did you really see explosions in this video?
Look again.
All you can see is large clouds of grey dust being ejected from the bottom. It actually looks remarkably similar to the giant greyish dust cloud that progressively obscured the upper floors of the WTC towers as they collapsed.
Controlled demolition uses the building's own weight against it, by severing its support columns.
We'd still have air and sea power. We have the most advanced navy and air force in the world. Not to mention nukes. This is a huge deterrent.
As for terrorists, one of the things that inspires people to align with terrorist causes is our actions in the middle east. Withdrawing our armies from foreign lands would make the United States safer from terrorists, as the terrorist ranks would soon dry up with no reason to hate us.
"It will be several decades before we could work ourselves into a position diplomatically that would allow us to remove troops and support from around the world."
I don't think I follow you. Will our allies be angry with us for removing bases from their lands?
I don't think so. They might even be glad that we can begin to lower our deficit by not pouring so much money into military spending. I think our allies would prefer the US have a strong economy than a strong military presence in their country...
In addition, it would improve diplomacy with countries that don't like us so much - like Palestine, Iran...
I'm definitely a PC person because I play games. And there is just plain more software in general for Windows.
However, I think it's no contest from a design perspective. Mac hardware is more standardized (eg, ATI vs Nvidia) and more plug&play;(compare airport to a pc router). MacOS is at least as reliable as XP, probably more - less futzing around, no registry crap -- and then if you consider the lack of viruses that target Macs... Oh and Vista is a total PoS.
Only thing that makes me nervous about Macs is they only have one mouse button. That's just... weird.
Zero!
I don't think the United States should have armies in 130 nations around the world.
Can you imagine if China had troops stationed in Mexico, or Canada? America would flip the hell out.
But we're in Japan. We're in Eastern Europe. We're in Southeast Asia.
I think you're on really shaky ground here. First of all, it's not possible to demonstrate the action of the Unconscious. Its existence can be inferred, but never proven.The Unconscious concepts I am familiar with are those of Jung and Freud, respectively - and neither ever proposed a role for the Unconscious in physiological development.
It's interesting to speculate on how "deep" the Unconscious might go, but to say, "This is how the brain works," as if you have the report in front of you, is disingenuous at best. If you do have any evidence to support this, I'd be interested to see it.
I don't buy it. Yes, the human body develops in response to the environment on a fundamental level; and yes, social learning at a young age has a huge impact on our relationships later in life (attachment theory), but I would argue that all of these developments occur within the framework of our basic genetic blueprints. IE, we're born with certain potentials, and the environment, and probably chance, too, help to determine what gets filled in and emphasized.
Do you think some children learn to be colorblind? If so, why is Red-Green colorblindness the most common? Red and green are primary colors - I highly doubt any children grow through a critical stage of development without seeing plenty of both of them. Not to mention colorblindness is more common among boys. Are boys at a higher risk of not being exposed to the right colors at the right time?
1. blame the terrorists
2. fight the terrorists in afghanistan
3. then fight the terrorists in iraq
4. possibly fight the terrorists in iran...?
5. ...yeah. pretty much anywhere there are terrorists we can start a war (says bush) except maybe saudi arabia and pakistan, because they play ball.
A war on terror has no end and no borders.
I suppose I could cite religious traditions, but I'm not religious.
Why shouldn't a physical thing be sacred? If you really believe that life has no meaning but what we make, and there is nothing after we die, than this physical world is all we have. Wouldn't that make the physical world that much more precious and full of meaning?
You must not have any children? Aren't all children sacred to their parents?
It's not that the clapper is motivated by social concerns - most likely he is, since clapping is a group behavior - it's that he has evaluated for himself, as an individual, whatever it was and reached the conclusion, independently, that it is clap-worthy, ie, he approves.
If he was alone, he would not clap to communicate his approval.
My argument is
A: people benefitted and
B: then they lied about what happened
I think they lied about what happened because the official story omits many details or does not plausibly explain them.
---------------------------------------
When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%
Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
If you've studied Carl Jung, then you should know his type theory of personality: which presupposes that individuals are born with an innate, preferred mode of interacting with the world. In fact, this mode also determines how an individual would "screen" information, and hence shape what it is that he learned from his environment (for example, introversion vs extraversion).
Furthermore, (according to Jung) an individual can "learn" to ignore his natural preference and become a "turntype." Needless to say, this is unhealthy for the individual, leading to anxiety, complexes, and generalized human misery.
p.s. For those interested, Jung's typology has been popularized by the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). It's the most complete, deep, and useful (imho) personality theory ever conceived.
I just want to defend my beliefs of innate predisposition from accusations of "dehumanizing the species."
I have not meant to suggest that human beings are incapable of change, growth and transformation. Of course not. But there is a certain inherent intelligence and potential; an optimal direction for self-actualization. IMHO.
But that doesn't mean I am reducing a human being to a pile of genetic material. On the contrary, I think our genes (as we understand them) are merely the physical manifestation of our presence, and I believe human beings are more than just physical matter (Wow, that sounds flakey).
Then again, how did genetic material get such a bad reputation? If human beings were the only species with DNA, it would be sacred.
From your wiki link:
"The inherent intelligence of swarms has inspired many social and political philosophers, in that the collective movements of an aggregate often derive from independent decision making on the part of a single individual. A common example is how the unaided decision of a person in a crowd to start clapping will often encourage others to follow suit, culminating in widespread applause. Such knowledge, an individualist advocate might argue, should encourage individual decision making (however mundane) as an effective tool in bringing about widespread social change.:
Why did that one person start clapping? If it was for a good reason, then the whole swarm is smart. If it was for a dumb reason, then the whole swarm is really, really pathetic. Your link presents a stronger argument in favor of individual judgment, methinks.
It's a logical principle. Ever read Flatland? It's about a 2-dimensional world with little, 2-dimensional people running around. Well, who has a better understanding of Flatland - the natives, or us 3-dimensional beings?
The people who live in Flatland aren't even aware of their limitations of perception - they can't even conceive of them. Just as we can't conceive of higher order dimensions.
Anyway, that's my analogy. Flatland is our consciousness which actually exists within a third dimension that we aren't even aware of. The third dimension isn't our brain, although it would exist according to the limitations of that brain. I can't say what the third thing is; that's the point.
Know what I mean?
Speaking to the issue of physical sexual desire, would anyone seriously contend that heterosexual desire stems from social learning? Absurd.
Given the stigma that is still associated with homosexuality, why would anyone "choose" to desire someone of the same sex? It'd be a hell of a lot easier to do what the majority is doing. You can't choose your desire.
But it's more than just physical desire that makes people fall in love. There is a mental/spiritual component, too. And I think that is also innate, and anyone who tries to label that as an environmental interaction is 'shrinking' what it means to be a human being.
There is an unfortunate tendency among heterosexuals to magnify the sexual dimension of homosexual relationships. Homosexuals seek companionship, security and fulfillment just like everyone else.
Totally agree. Circumcision reduces sensitivity for a negligible hygiene boost. Plenty of uncircumcised guys have no problem keeping their willies clean. If the kid grows up, and he wants one, Godspeed. Not the parent's decision to make.
Not to mention, there have been cases where circumcisions have gone wrong with disastrous results. It's freakishly rare I would imagine, but why even risk something like that?
"Thomas Jefferson first suggested that we not have a standing army, and wrote a series of letters in 1787, as the Constitution was being debated, urging James Madison and others to write it into the Constitution.
The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army.
Switzerland has such an army, and many have suggested it's one reason why Hitler never tried to invade this neighbor."
P.S. Please don't throw around "national security" as if that handy little term needs no explanation. If you wish to include "national security" in your argument, please say what exactly you mean by it. Security of US citizens from foreign invasion? Security of US business interests in the middle east? Thanks!
note: For the purposes of this debate, the Air Force and Navy are excluded.
"Suicide rates among the elderly are highest for those who are divorced or widowed. In 1998, among males aged 75 years and older the rate for divorced men was 3.4 times and widowed men was 2.6 times that for married men. In the same age group, the suicide rate for divorced women was 2.8 times and widowed women was 1.9 times the rate among married women."
I don't think I can endorse communism, but I agree that capitalism in it's present form does create poverty. It's not a coincidence that some of the wealthiest industrial areas on earth are surrounded by slums. They thrive on cheap, available labor.
I don't know much about the micro-loans, but I've heard of them and they seem entirely positive.
I can't get past
"A revision of the Nazi heirarchy...in 1944 increased productivity by some 30%, which really gives an indication of the waste within nazi ranks. Of course, by that time, it was already too late."
I wasn't referring to something as abstract as organizational waste. I was referring to the ruthless efficiency involved in murdering human beings and disposing of their corpses as cheaply and quickly as possible. Generally, that's what people mean when they use "Nazis" and "efficiency" in the same sentence.
"Terrorist regime." That's a nice phrase to throw around carelessly.
Did you forget that the CIA carried out a military coup against the Shah of Iran in the 1950s? Terrorism is a matter of perspective. The reason fundamentalist groups in the Middle East hate America is because they are tired of us occupying their holy land and destabilizing governments.
Do some independent research before you endorse what you hear in the mainstream media. Google is your friend.
The question was regarding the capacity for judgment of groups vs individuals - which I read as the ability to make smart, humane choices. Not to simply perform work of some kind.
That reminds me of another debate elsewhere, in which offshore outsourcing was praised for it's salutary effect on an abstract entity known as, "the economy." My question, then as now, is: what about the human cost? The Nazis were infamous for their "efficiency."
Yes, and there's been a lot of fascinating and hopeful studies on this in social psychology.
from wiki
Preventing groupthink
According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily doomed to groupthink. He also claims that there are several ways to prevent it. Janis devised seven ways of preventing groupthink (209-15):
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[3] During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
The lack of molten steel in the report indicates one thing: The working hypothesis is insufficient.
9/11 was a historic and tragic event. It has radically altered the political discourse and shaped America's foreign and domestic policy for the last 6-7 years. Don't you think our government should be interested in a full and complete investigation? We spent more on the Challenger disaster($3million vs $50million). Considering the investigation doesn't appear to be complete, it seems reasonable to invest another $47million or so, what do you say?
I agree with NIST's first proposition. I even agree with some of the claims in their 2nd proposition, but it goes too far.
See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel.
Even if you believe NIST's claim that a massively compromised support structure on a handful of floors could cause a global collapse, how could it have created the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?
That's why molten steel is important. It proves that the 9/11 commission's hypothesis is not sufficient to explain all the data. If you can explain the molten steel with the 9/11 commission's facts, I'm ready to hear the alternative viewpoint. So far, the best your side can come up with is, Oh, molten steel is irrelevant.
Diversity of opinion and independence are two of the 4 characteristics of a "wise crowd."
So, yes, under perfect conditions, a large body of Individuals probably can make a decision much better than one individual. The problem is that groups inevitably bring with them a psychological dynamic that tends to discourage individual views and independent thinking.
Knowledge is the key. Groups are unavoidable and can be beneficial, as long as everyone understands the importance of protecting alternative viewpoints.
Rocknwow.
You have criticized me elsewhere for speculating both too much and not enough. In fact, you do such a good job of contradicting yourself, I need only step aside.
However, you did raise one or two "points" I wanted to address:
"Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If [discovered, it would] confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was."
and
"Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make?"
Molten steel, first. See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel. It was insufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel columns on the floors in question.
How then, did it result in the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?
There is a brief video documenting the molten steel elsewhere on this page. In it, one of the rescue workers estimates the temperature of the steel as "about 1500 degrees" (note: this was filmed six weeks after the attack). As the temperature of steel increases, it shifts in color. The color range of steel from dull red to bright orange equates to 1200 degrees F to 1600 degrees F. I would say the rescue worker is pretty close with his estimate.
And you ask "who cares?" A jet-fuel fire + office fire could not have produced the necessary energy to heat that steel, and maintain that heat for weeks after the incident.
In this light, it certainly appears that secondary devices may have been used. To rebut your former question, why not blame those devices on the terrorists, I would suggest that it is much harder to explain away how the terrorists would have bypassed WTC security to plant those devices.
From http://www.iwilltryit.com/marvin.htm
" Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
Popular Mechanics, of course, did their best to remain unbiased and objective in their investigation.
A quote from prison planet web site:
"It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?"
The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report. It took weeks for rescue workers to water-cool the glowing steel beneath the wreckage at ground zero. It was clearly and prominently visible in a thermal image taken by a USGS satellite on September 16--five days later.
In the video, one of the workers states that it has been almost 6 weeks after the attacks, and workers are still trying to cool down the steel.
The 9/11 commission and supporters of the official story don't try to make the claim that office fires produce molten steel. They just ignore it.
Well, I posted a link to the Northwoods papers which are massively relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy angle...
Anywho, you're saying the Gulf of Tonkin LIE is not relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy angle? Well, I fail to see how it is not.
Pres. Johnson wanted to rally support for a war in Vietnam. But like always, the American people don't want to send their kids to die for some Washington political agenda. What to do? Let's LIE and deceive the American people into thinking the first attack was unprovoked (our ship wasn't "deployed" there. Johnson told the American people it was "patrolling," ie, combat neutral, when in fact it was secretly coordinating with the the S. Vietnamese forces, ie, taking sides) Let's LIE a second time and say there was a followup attack. Let's LIE yet a third time and tell the American people that there is a credible threat of continued attacks against neutral (lie) American patrols (lie) that are minding their own business (lie).
The president LIED so he could send American kids to die in the jungle for a political agenda.
Just like Bush LIED so he could send American kids to die in the desert for a political agenda.
The point I'm making with Tonkin is that our Government has LIED to us in the past. Governments LIE. How many men died in Vietnam for a lie? How many men are still dying in Iraq for a lie?
If presidents can lie about pretexts for war, what else can they lie about? What other lies have Americans died for? Was 9/11 a lie? Is it really unthinkable? Is there a small possibility?
There is a famous liar who went far beyond the worst of what the 9/11 conspiracy anglers have suggested of this government. And he has some famous advice for Liars in positions of power...
Like Johnson and Bush, he lied to rally his people to war and invade Poland. He dressed up some of his SS in Polish army uniforms and simulated a Polish invasion. To what end? With no formal war declaration, Germany invaded Poland in 1939. It was the beginning of WWII.
---------------------------------------
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
from Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
I think it sounds a little incredible, myself.
By the way, if the government had seriously explored the use of controlled demolition practices in the collapse of the WTCs, I, and many others,wouldn't be so suspicious of them. Based on the evidence, it is the most reasonable explanation! Yet the 9/11 commission dismissed the CD (controlled demolition) hypothesis out of hand, ignoring any data that supported it.
No doubt. Another objection based on the Official Story is that, well, the steel didn't really melt, it was just weakened to the point where it couldn't support the weight of the upper stories, and once those fell, etc etc, pancake theory...case closed.
I guess that's why the Official Report doesn't mention the pools of orange-hot molten steel at the base of all the buildings, which took weeks to cool, and showed up on thermal images. It just doesn't fit their story.
If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless. We don't have the classified 9/11 Psy Op document (if there is such a thing)... and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!
The questions of this debate are merely:
1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and
2. is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?
That being said, I can't resist pointing out the following:
We didn't frame Afghanistan, we pinned it on "the terrorists," specifically, Al-Quaeda. For a corrupt and sinister government, this is actually a better scapegoat because it gives us the right (so says Bush) to attack any country (including say, Iran) as long as we label them terrorists first. In addition, the CIA could have found no better accomplice than Al-Quaeda, since the CIA created and trained them to begin with, and they are fanatical muslims to boot.
Read the declassified Northwoods documents I linked to - They are actual plans to wage psychological warfare on the American people. They are a black & white refutation of your statement.
Maybe I should have cited the Gulf of Tonkin lie that got us into Vietnam. Doesn't quite have the parallelism of Northwoods, but still relevant.
Where to begin?
A lot of people I have spoken to have trouble getting past the sheer madness of it. They never get to examining the actual facts of that day because, how could our government do that to it's own people? And what would they have to gain?
Is government complicity in 9/11 a crazy notion? Yes.
But no crazier than some of the other crap they have cooked up. Case in point: Operation Northwoods.
Now declassified, the Northwoods documents detail a covert psychological operation intended to rally foreign and domestic support for military intervention against Cuba. (Starting to sound familiar yet?)
The operation included, among other things, this little gem: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
I really don't think the Bible is for real, but I know Christians that are Gay, so here is my 2 cents.
I did a quick search and found this interesting web page that says Christ took away the "Law" of the Old Testament and now "Grace" is in effect, nullifying Leviticus 18:22. Bam.
Of course, what entity has the power or judgment to go about dissolving irresponsible corporations....
Could it be, individuals...?
1. There are a finite amount of resources in the world.
2. Likewise, a corporation has a finite amount of assets at any given time. A corporation's assets decrease by some fractional amount when they pay wages to American workers.
3. Now, when a corporation moves overseas, and they pay their new employee's wages, they don't have to pay so much; so now, their assets are decreasing by a smaller fractional amount than before.
3a. The corporation's revenue hasn't changed. But now it's got more assets. It can invest in more assets (production facilities) with that money. It can hand out some bonuses to the people at the top (sounds likely). It could lower prices (with the exception of the electronics industry, I don't see prices falling anywhere...)
3b. Let's say the corporation reinvests in itself. Do the employees get a stake in that investment? No. Ignoring for the moment where the employees are located, the net effect of the transaction is that wealth (which is finite) has been redistributed to the top.
Just to be clear, you are referring to offshore outsourcing, right?
In your hypothetical scenario, the company offshores so it may then lower prices and remain competitive. In reality, I think companies resort to offshoring because they have bowed to investor pressure to maximize short term profits.
There was price competition in this country before we sent millions of jobs overseas. Are corporations not rich enough? Wealth is being redistributed as we speak, and it's going to the very top. I don't see this trend reversing--do you?
The whole corporate model of business is based on infinite resources and endless growth. This model is entirely incompatible with wage parity in any meaningful sense. If you take the wages of the bottom 95% of the world and distribute them equally among that 95%, then 95% of the world would be poor.
Corporations don't think past the next quarter. They have no idea where all this is leading. The people who really run the Corporations from the Board of Directors probably have some kind of plan for where all this is going, but I don't think it involves those of us in the bottom 95%!
The idea that what is good for the Corporation is somehow good for the worker is highly suspect in my opinion. A corporation is a profit machine, nothing more.
I fear censorship of video games a lot more than I fear the games themselves.
Whenever new media gains popularity with youth, we hear how comic books/film/rock&roll;/television/rap/and now, video games are responsible for moral decline.
History suggests that video games are just the latest scapegoat, and no psychology study (that I am aware of) has been able to show a causal relationship between video games and violence in the real world.
Why are we so ready to fear the youth? That's what this misdirected issue is all about, really. If you are looking for moral decline, try starting at the top, not the bottom.
I can't believe you are suggesting that American customers (ie, workers) have at any time demanded that American companies lower the cost of goods in the marketplace by moving their jobs overseas!
What Americans are demanding is a good standard of living with a decent wage so we can afford to buy all the goods and services we need; so we can provide for our families, without working 2 or 3 jobs. Outsourcing to developing nations drives wages down.
The one consumer item that American's are complaining long and hard about is gas. Have the massive, record profits reaped by American Oil interests translated into reduced gas prices? Of course not.
I'm not an economist, but I know that corporations don't outsource so they can "pass their savings along" to me. How much does it cost Nike to make a pair of shoes, again?
When corporations offshore jobs they are, in a sense, dumping the labor of that other country into the US job market -- This has the immediate effect of taking money out of the hands of the poor and middle class worker, and, in the longer term, diluting the worth of the American worker. When our jobs go overseas, Americans have to take less skilled jobs that pay less and are less secure. You're saying that it's OK if Americans have less money, because products cost less? Well, the cost of living in America is going up, not down!!!
Who benefits the most from outsourcing? By far, the benefit is disproportionately enjoyed by Management and Shareholders.
I don't even know what to say after reading this article. I hate to jump to conclusions but it sounds like Roundup may have played a major role in declining frog populations.
And not only that, but leveraging genetic modification and your own company's pesticide to kill natural competition to your GM crops (which cannot be contained in the wild)? This company is a menace to the planet.
I examined the NIST report, but I think the more compelling hypothesis can be found in the link I provided.
According to NIST, an intial column(s) failed which resulted in a "vertical progression" followed by a "horizontal progression." I'm sorry, but this building wasn't made of dominoes.
NIST also exaggerates what they call "disproportionate" collapse. If you watch the footage on youtube it is entirely consistent with other recorded demolitions. It is even more "proportionate" than most.
Let other people be great. Also known as "listening for the gold." When others sense that you believe in them, it helps spur them to greater achievements.
Also, Never organize on the fly - you're more likely to remember where you found whatever it was than you are to remember where you subsequently stashed it. I guess if you are organized that doesn't help so much, but if you tend toward disorder, trust me, it's great advice. :)
People who think women aren't funny are usually the same ones that think being funny entails being obnoxious and arrogant.
There might be fewer female standups, but that doesn't prove anything about women's wit. Also, I think women will sometimes bite their lip before telling an indelicate or cruel joke, whereas men will just tell the joke because "we couldn't resist."
My sister is funny. My girlfriend is funny. Ellen Degeneres is funny. And here's a clip of a female comic in Chicago. The noise that erupts after the punchline would be laughter.
Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortions. Those who can afford to circumvent the system will (by going to another state/country/bribing a doctor/etc)--in reality, outlawing abortion hurts poor women more than any other demographic because they are the ones that will turn to back-alley abortions and suffer infection/complications/death because of it.
Also, the government has a greater obligation to the health of the mother than the fetus. We can argue all we want about when life begins, but I'm pretty sure you're not a citizen until after you're born. At least, until they start issuing conception certificates instead of birth certificates.
We've seen the footage of WTC 7 collapsing straight down, into it's own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed, so many times that it can start to look "normal" somehow.
Nevertheless, it is not normal. Buildings don't collapse straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed--at least, not without proper planning.
I'm surprised all the Demolition companies didn't go out of business after 9/11. Apparently all you have to do is set a steel-frame building on fire for a couple of hours and they collapse perfectly without any planning or explosives. Right?
Take a look at what happens in this failed demolition video. According to the 9/11 pancake theory, the force of the remaining upper floors of the building hitting the ground should have precipitated a massive "vertical failure" resulting in "global collapse."
