Vacation Through Devastation (This year: the Gulf Coast. Next year: the site of the Hindenburg disaster.) (1978 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ets_nonfiction ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: 0.21 on 164 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-09-17 15:53:22 EDT
Well, I just got back from an invigorating week amid the beauty and devastation that is our Gulf Coast and I think I can safely report that, while New Orleans' French Quarter and Garden District might lack its trademark spanish moss (it was blown off most of the trees in the storm), it is still a lovely and worthwhile place to find a little R&R...or D&W (drink and a whore), as the case may be. The downtown area, while eerily vacant at times, seems to have bounced back in some measure and is mostly open for business. The crowds were thin, which is perfect for an antisocial fucker like myself, which also makes for short lines at the bar.
According to people on the street, however, many of the Katrina refugees have been discouraged or routinely blocked from coming back by miles of FEMA red tape, an observation echoed by some reporters. My curiosity was piqued when I discovered that there was very little actual New Orleans style music being played in the now-mostly-white-patroned establishments. In our entire trip we found a grand total of 3 actual jazz bands and one of those was inside Harrah's casino. There were a handful of what might have been described as blues bands we saw in the French Quarter, but mainly it was classic and contemporary radio rock, the kind I could find any night of the week in any reasonably sized city in America. There were many people in the city that were there by contract from places like Denver, so, as many have pointed out, the complexion of the city is entirely different from before the storm. I hated to admit it, but I was beginning to think Ray Nagin might have had a point about the whole 'chocolate city' thing; however, my talks with some jazz musicians indicated that the trend toward commerical rock and away from more traditional forms of music on Bourbon street has been going on for quite some time and that Katrina only accelerated that shift.
While the center of the city - the touristy parts - were mostly spic and span, some parts of the city still looked like a nuclear bomb went off. There was very little construction or demolition work I could see being done on these areas. Help wanted signs were pretty much everywhere though, so most of the beggars by whom I found myself occasionally accosted had little or no excuse for their begging other than their housing situation.
The gulf coast cities of Bay St. Louis, Gulfport, and Biloxi...same story. Plenty of available work, but still lots of damage. We picked up a newspaper in Gulfport and found about 2 pages solid of help wanted ads, a pretty good sign of some economic recovery, but driving along the beach it was clear that the structural recovery of these cities would take much longer. Basically anything within 1000 feet of the coast for a solid 20 miles was all but eviscerated. Only select buildings and piers made from reinforced concrete survived. Clothes and other personal affects were still strewn along the beach, half buried in sand. Sometimes only pilings or concrete slabs remained of what were once nice beachfront homes.
A walk along the beach and I pulled a wrist watch out of a sand pile. The faceplate was smashed and it was full of sand. Clearing this all away, I was surprised to find that, after a category 4 hurricane, being washed to sea by a storm surge, and subsequently being buried on the beach for over a year, the thing still worked and kept perfect time. A good omen? A sign of hope? Maybe a good commercial for JJ Watch Company? Anyway, I'm digressing. Back to New Orleans...
The only thing that can be more surreal than staying a block away from the, now infamous, Convention Center a year after the most costly and destructive natural disaster in our nation's history is staying there on the 5-year anniversary of the most devastating black ops attack in our history and seeing the powers that be desperately and predictably using the occasion to flood my hotel television with nine kinds of propaganda and misinformation. It was truly amusing, to say the least. Laughable, really. What you and I didn't see on our nightly news reports were the thousands of people at ground zero wearing the black "9/11 Was An Inside Job" and "Investigate 9/11" t-shirts. (Horray for free speech zones!) But really, what did we expect? Real news? Psssht.
At least C-SPAN isn't afraid of airing "Reopen 9/11 Investigation" conferences - I did happen to catch one after a night of debauchery on Bourbon Street - and I'm shocked to report that Paula Zahn of CNN actually aired a halfway flattering look at the Loose Change documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1Vmv6ZOgw&mode=related&search=), which suggests that CNN is seeking to maintain some form of credibility in the face of unrelenting polls and viewer complaints suggesting that growing numbers of Americans are waking up to the 9/11 coverup. As their own polls showed, well over 40% of Americans now believe that the government had something to do with the attacks.
Better late than never, I suppose, even if one of your anchors is probably a CIA agent: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/anderson-coopers-cia-secret.php
And it has been known to employ Army Psyops experts in its news division: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748
Anyway, back on 9/11 developments, it seems they've finally released the the Citgo gas station tape from the Pentagon, and guess what! It shows absolutley nothing. http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/911_gas_station_video_released.htm
As the article says, FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been put in for the Doubletree Hotel tape, which the FBI acknowledges exists but says, like the Citgo tape, contains no relevant footage. The Sheraton Hotel tape is another story altogether. The FBI says it does not exist, yet major news media reports shortly after 9/11/01 confirm that hotel emplyees sat watching the tape in "shock and horror" before it was confiscated by federal employees. So I guess this is another one of those cases of who you'd rather believe.
On another note, during my stay in the 'chocolate city' I learned that the mayor's plan for reconstruction includes giving residents a year to clean up the mess on their property after which time it could be deemed blighted by the city and taken through eminent domain, I suppose to build another Wal-Mart or Starbucks...because that's just what the world needs more of, more hopped up caffeine junkies looking for a one-stop-shop for all their Chinese-made NASCAR memorobilia needs.
Moving on, some of you might have heard Greg Palast, a reporter for the BBC, the Guardian, and Harper's, author of "Armed Madhouse", and the man whose investigations have shown how Bush unequivocally stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, was on the run recently from the Department of Homeland Security for allegedly "threatening critical infrastructure." Apparently photographing Katrina refugees in their new concentration camp-style housing situation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana across from an Exxon refinery is against the law under the Patriot Act. Go figure. http://www.gregpalast.com/ Fortunately for those interested in the future of actual journalism, the Department of Exxon Motherland Security has since dropped its persuit of Mr. Palast.
One last thing and I'll bring this scatterbrained post to a close... I left for my trip Friday, September 8th. Gasoline in Evanville, Indiana was about $2.45 a gallon. On the way back through Mississippi, on September 15th, gasoline was $2.29 in most places. Last night, on Saturday, September 16, in Henderson, Kentucky, regular unleaded gasoline was $2.09 a gallon. My question to you is this: how long till the prices go right back up to $3 a gallon and will it be right after the November elections or right after Christmas?
My bet is after Christmas. Either way, you should probably invest in a holding tank and stock up now. The only thing worse than running out of gas these days is running your battery down: http://cfn13.com/StoryHeadline.aspx?id=18686
User Reviews
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:53:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Uber is obviously obsessed with you but cant admit it. Just ask him out already, fags.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:29:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
OH NO WHAT WILL THE EVIL GOVERNMENT AND GREEDY CORPORATIONS DO NEXT. :0
Submitted by Drone_of_Industry (user info) at 2006-09-23 11:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
cool. I didn't know you went to New Orleans n whatnot. I'm gonna be there in a couple weeks myself!
Submitted by eppliks (user info) at 2006-09-18 22:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Brad: It is time to hurt people. They wont learn any other way.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 20:33:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"All I ask is that you make an informed decision based on reason, NOT presupposition."
I have, now leave me the fuck alone.
You need help man.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 20:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:54:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947
Watch that, Woody. The whole thing.
If you have a question, pause and write it down. Then, I suggest using this beautiful tool called the internet to substantiate the claims made in the video.
When you're done with all of that, if you STILL have questions, come to me and I'll hold your hand through this painful and difficult time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UGH!
There is no fucking way I'm watching that tripe. Alex Jones? talk about unreliable. fucking hell man when you're agreeing with Alex Jones you know you're wrong. I've seen Alex Jones videos in the past and ther is no fucking way I'm sitting through another of his spurious dramatically musiced bad scienced biased twisted bollocks pieces of shit again.
Alex Jones IS a straw-man.
Fucking hell man are you so far gone that you can't see that video for what it is?
You need help.
I'm staying away from you now, please stay away from me too.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 20:28:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indo: the only one using misdirection here is you.
As for the rest of you, believe what you want to believe. All I ask is that you make an informed decision based on reason, NOT presupposition. This is exactly what people like Indo cannot tolerate, because their arguments do not stand up to reason.
Go through it slowly and reason every step of the way. Never take anything for granted, and do not assume anything. Look at the argument from multiple angles. Look at ALL the evidence, and make an informed decision.
You cannot make an informed decision if you're leaving out facts, which is precisely what the official story hinges upon, and exactly what people like Indo depend upon for the survival of their lies and misdirections. They're counting on people not taking the time to investigate for themselves. They're counting on the laziness and apathy of the public to continue this lie that 42% of the American public now do not believe.
One day very soon, there will come a time when these people will no longer be able to maintain the lie. It will lose its facade of plausability and will be laid wide open for the American public to gawk at on primetime news. There will come a time when they will no longer be able to ignore it. They will be forced to either admit their deeds or change their official story.
Till then, read, investigate, and think for yourself. That's all I've got to say on that at this juncture.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 20:01:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:42:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell me, Woody, what IS the Bush agenda?
----------------------
To use his limitless power and media control to murder 3k americans in the greatest conspiracy ever bt not have the forsight to see that Iraq will go bad.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:57:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:48:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
See what I mean... I didn't say "no air resistence". You put words in my mouth.
That's all you EVER do. You can't win a debate by putting words in your opponent's mouth. It's not a true victory. It only carries the illusion of victory to those who don't know better or are too lazy to exercise their capacity for reason.
---------------------------
Hahaha. You bringing up reason is hilarious. You didn't exactly say no air resistance, you said heated up enough so it was very similiar to falling in a vaccuum, if it was similiar to falling in a vaccuum there would be no air resistance, or at least so little air resistance it would be pretty much the same thing.
The bottom line is this ETS, you are fucking idiot. You think thousands of pounds of some undertermined explosive were snuck onto one of the busiest office buildings in the world with virtually no wittnesses. Not just enough explosives to tear down the building but enough to heat up all the air in the building so much that it is like falling in a vaccuum (which isn't even possible).
Anyone who has watched your stupid fucking videos please look
http://www.911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf , http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html and http://www.911myths.com/
I have yet to see a single theory put forth by you that wasn't disproven here, and I have yet to see any defense by loose change or any of your other sources for the very clear misdirection they use.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:54:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947
Watch that, Woody. The whole thing.
If you have a question, pause and write it down. Then, I suggest using this beautiful tool called the internet to substantiate the claims made in the video.
When you're done with all of that, if you STILL have questions, come to me and I'll hold your hand through this painful and difficult time.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:45:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
British govt works very differntly to that of the usa, I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:42:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Let me give you just 3 motives right off the top of my head. Oil, money, and power"
7/7 definatley did nothing for the gotvts. hold on power.
It made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even more unpopular thean they already are.
Monye??
I don't see how 7/7 could possibly have made the British govt money.
All the members of the British govty have to stick to strict regulations about their financial dealings, they are all considerably poorer than they would be had they got a normal job rather than gone into politics.
I don't think you have ny idea what you're talking about.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:42:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:37:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
I've seen pre-recorded admissions of the bombers of 7/7
And oil/money/power make no sense as motives for 7/7
As I said it made the war in Iraq and Afghanistan even more unpopulr and made the curent giovt considerably les likely to hold onto power next election.
the 7/7 bombing harmed the bush agenda a lot.
-------------
Tell me, Woody, what IS the Bush agenda?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:37:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I've seen pre-recorded admissions of the bombers of 7/7
And oil/money/power make no sense as motives for 7/7
As I said it made the war in Iraq and Afghanistan even more unpopulr and made the curent giovt considerably les likely to hold onto power next election.
the 7/7 bombing harmed the bush agenda a lot.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:29:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
"AND you have to somehow reconcile the mounting evidence that your own damned government carried out 7/7."
Well thats new.
BRad, I have in the past talked about the pull it statement.
I had not accepted any official story about it before you mentioned it. I wasn't aware of who he was or that he ever said that before you quoted it.
As I read the phrase pull it I thought he was talking about the operation. Not because of any govt story, I had never heard about it until then. That is the inretpretation I came up with as I read it, I read on expecting to see him admit to demolishing the building later in the quote, as my eyes passed over the phrase pull it, your interpretation did not even occur to me.
I am not under the sway of the usa govts varsion of events because I have never fucking heard the usa govts version of events.
I saw on the news the plane hit the second tower, I later saw them collapse. I did not wait around for Bush to explain that the two events were conected, I did not real the results of the official investigations when they came out.
The only explanation I have ever read or heard is yours Brad.
So don't say I have found their story so convincing, I haven't heard their story. I assumed the planes and the collapse were connected and I have been very very unconvinced by your explanations.
I will repeat. Yours is the only explanation as to what happened I have ever read and I don't belevie it. I am not brainwashed by the usa govts. explanation of what happened becaue I have never fucking heard it from any source other than you.
And I am so far unaware of any evidence that the British govt was behind 7/7.
I have however seen videos of the bombers themselves, both the CCTV and the pre-recorded admissions and explanations of their motives, and have seen that Al quaedia (I hate spelling that word) has claimed responsibility.
I also can find no motive for it as it actually caused the govts. ratings to fall.
---------------------
There's just too much crap to respond to here and frankly I'm sick of listening to your ignorant doublethink.
I don't give a fuck whether you believe the government's account of the events or not. You're not an American citizen, therefore your opinion is close to inconsequential in this matter. Furthermore, who the HELL ever said that 'ratings' are the only motivation for government activities? Are you fucking retarded? Do you honestly just not have any concept of what kind of world you live in? You wonder why I call you names...it's because of stupid shit like that right there.
Let me give you just 3 motives right off the top of my head. Oil, money, and power. There you go. The government isn't concerned with falling ratings unless it's an election year, but those three motives are pretty goddamned universal and timeless.
You've seen prerecorded admissions of the hijackers of 9/11!? Where?
Furthermore, who the hell said there weren't hijackers on any of the flights? Yet another stupid assumption on YOUR part as to what I'm actually saying. This is why it's useless to discuss this with you. You refuse to fucking pay attention.
Submitted by Harbinger (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:06:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, please stop for a moment and smell the roses
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vtgPAQTJLQs
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 19:06:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have no idea who that is.
It sounds a bit crappy to me but if thats how you feel then whatever.
Submitted by Harbinger (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
not really, it's Ayn Rand
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:52:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Deep Harbinger
Submitted by Harbinger (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:51:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:51:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"That's all you EVER do. You can't win a debate by putting words in your opponent's mouth. It's not a true victory."
Thats an extrmely accurate accusation there Indon.
Submitted by Harbinger (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:49:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:48:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:12:55 (#)
Ranking: -2
So not only was there enough explosives to destroy the pillars but to also heat up all the surrounding air to the point that there was no air resistance?
....great work....
--------
See what I mean... I didn't say "no air resistence". You put words in my mouth.
That's all you EVER do. You can't win a debate by putting words in your opponent's mouth. It's not a true victory. It only carries the illusion of victory to those who don't know better or are too lazy to exercise their capacity for reason.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
paraphrased???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:56:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
-------------------
Essentially, yes.
-------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:18:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"AND you have to somehow reconcile the mounting evidence that your own damned government carried out 7/7."
Well thats new.
BRad, I have in the past talked about the pull it statement.
I had not accepted any official story about it before you mentioned it. I wasn't aware of who he was or that he ever said that before you quoted it.
As I read the phrase pull it I thought he was talking about the operation. Not because of any govt story, I had never heard about it until then. That is the inretpretation I came up with as I read it, I read on expecting to see him admit to demolishing the building later in the quote, as my eyes passed over the phrase pull it, your interpretation did not even occur to me.
I am not under the sway of the usa govts varsion of events because I have never fucking heard the usa govts version of events.
I saw on the news the plane hit the second tower, I later saw them collapse. I did not wait around for Bush to explain that the two events were conected, I did not real the results of the official investigations when they came out.
The only explanation I have ever read or heard is yours Brad.
So don't say I have found their story so convincing, I haven't heard their story. I assumed the planes and the collapse were connected and I have been very very unconvinced by your explanations.
I will repeat. Yours is the only explanation as to what happened I have ever read and I don't belevie it. I am not brainwashed by the usa govts. explanation of what happened becaue I have never fucking heard it from any source other than you.
And I am so far unaware of any evidence that the British govt was behind 7/7.
I have however seen videos of the bombers themselves, both the CCTV and the pre-recorded admissions and explanations of their motives, and have seen that Al quaedia (I hate spelling that word) has claimed responsibility.
I also can find no motive for it as it actually caused the govts. ratings to fall.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:12:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:28:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Now extrapolate this to a building wherein bombs are going off, heating the air below, thereby reducing air resistence. Provided that all supports in the building are taken out by bombs, we should actually EXPECT to see the top of the building reach the ground at roughly the same time as the exact same building falling in vacuum. I say roughly because, while it will OBVIOUSLY not be as fast, the difference over that distance will be less perceptible than you think given the heating created by the blasts.
Is this beginning to sink in yet?
The point is, there appears to be ZERO resistance given by steel or concrete or glass or any other substance, REGARDLESS of the consideration of air, in the descent of building 7. If you can even come close to refuting this with any numerical data whatsoever, I'll eat my hat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So not only was there enough explosives to destroy the pillars but to also heat up all the surrounding air to the point that there was no air resistance?
....great work....
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 18:00:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
paraphrased *me*
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:59:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/93167#2146342
Paragraph 3, you chav motherfucker.
You paraphrased my and got it wrong.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:55:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:34:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ets, you called Woody wardy. HAR!!!
------------
They're both about equally aloof.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:54:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:05:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
Thank you Brad, that took much longer than I feel it should have.
Now listen for a second. I have seen absolutely no evidence in what you have shown me that building 7 was demolished, and I find your interpretaion of the phrase 'pull it' as particualrly iffy, however on the other hand I have seen absolutely no evidence that building 7 wasn't demolished and unlikely as I think it I have never said that it definately wasn't. If you want to think that I will not contest it, I only contest points where I am 100% certain that you are wrong. In fact you should note that I have never ever said that Bush was not behind 11/9. You are never going to convince me about building 7 unless you come up with some new evidence. In fact any evidence at all would be good.
-------------------------
Dude, why the HELL do you require more evidence from ME? Why not ask the same of the government in their official bullshit story? What is it about their bullshit that's so goddamned convincing to you?
Here's the short of it, you chavvy fuck. You're a complete moron. There is no convincing you. You can't even explain why Silverstein's statement of pulling the fucking building on national tv isn't enough for you. You just call if "iffy" and move on. You dismiss a smoking gun. Then you turn around and look at the freefall speed of the collapse and that's STILL not enough for you. You look at the refutation of those that claim that Silverstein was talking about a company of firefighters when he said "pull it", which besides it's compete ridiculousness up front, is completely false because according to firefighter's own accounts, they had all abandoned building 7 earlier in the day at around 11:00 or 12:00. This is all documented evidence, and yet you'll STILL find some bullshit little excuse that doesn't hold an ounce of water in which to place your belief.
You want more evidence? There's plenty of it out there. How about the other smoking gun evidence of the molten steel found at the site of building 7? How about Steven jones's research on that steel and the results of that? How about the circumstantial, but compelling evidence of the tenents of building 7 - the CIA, the FBI, Guiliani's Emergency Command Bunker, the SEC (which, by the way was holding documents on numerous Wall Street investigations on insider trading and other financial fraud)? Are you just going to ignore all this? What about FEMA arriving on the scene the fucking NIGHT BEFORE 9/11? They arrived in lower Manhattan on 9/10 for a 'meeting' and just happened to be right across the street ready and rearin' to spring into action. Ask yourself, why did the 9/11 Commission not investigate the collapse of building 7?
What the fuck.
You're an idiot, dude. Either you didn't know all this, or you're just a moron. To believe the official story over all that I've just given you makes you an idiot.
In conclusion, let me remind you of the Zogby polls from August of 2004 that said that "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals". http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
That was 2004.
In May of 2006, a new Zogby poll has concluded that 70 MILLION American adults, 42% of the population, believe there was a coverup on 9/11. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm
It ain't like I'm a lone squealer here, buddy, and it certainly ain't like you've gotten anything resembling ample news coverage concering the events. 42% of Americans believe in a 9/11 conspiracy and this is all with only a handful of stories ever making the air about it in 5 years. That's remarkable.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter a goddamn bit what YOU think. You don't have to live in this country. You DO, however, have to somehow reconcile that your government has followed us to 2 wars supposedly sparked by 9/11. AND you have to somehow reconcile the mounting evidence that your own damned government carried out 7/7.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:53:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:31:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odd, I thought this was Brad, now I have no idea. Why would someone 0 no comment? especially with an alter?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bubba, he does that a fair bit.
Brad, there is no way I'm going to start arguing wit you about that lot, just read what I said in my last review. I am a little anoyed at the way you're saying that I said you said things.
As if I'm claiming you said things; I'm not simply claiming you said things I actually linked to exactly where you said them.
I know its just semantics but if you're being reasonable (HA!) you should see where I'm coming from.
don't suggest that these are as yet unsubstantiated claims, these are direct quotes with links to the source. I think we're done here though. Give up trying to convince me about building 7, I'm not saying you're definately wrong, but I am extremely sceptical and your evidence does absolutely nothing to change that.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:34:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ets, you called Woody wardy. HAR!!!
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:31:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:39:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Obviously, a building isn't going to fall any faster than gravity will allow, and obviously with air involved it isn't going to fall as fast as in a vacuum, yet the video shows that the rate of fall is right at vacuum speed, meaning that even if calculations are slightly off, there is some serious explaining that needs to be done for a building to even APPROACH freefall speed in a vacuum."
There is no serious explaining that need to be done to counteract a point that is physically impossible.
There is absolutely no way that building could have fell as fast as those calculations say it did.
No way...even if it was done with controlled demolition (which is addressed in my second point) then it STILL wouldn't have fallen that fast.
It is not physically possible for the building to have fallen that fast.
That IS the explanation, the explanation is that those calculations MUST be wrong because they come up with something physically impossible.
Just admit you were wrong
-------------------------
You can't just say, "the calculation MUST be wrong," Wardy; you've got to PROVE it. PROVE where and how the calculations went awry. Watch the video and refute it.
You've attributed about 10 different quotes to me that all say different things. First you say I said it fell faster than in a vacuum and said that was impossible, which I agree with. Then you said I said that it fell AT the speed in a vacuum and said THAT was impossible, which, while I agree with it in theory, I acknowledge the assumption that the "impossibility" hinges on the precision of the instruments doing the time counting.
For instance, air resistence will be more or less perceptible with different falling objects, and that perceptibility will further hinge upon the distance those objects are falling and the timekeeping instrument being used. For instance, if you drop exact copy 1000 lb aerodynamic bombs at the same time from a height of 15 feet, one in a vacuum and one in an air density similar to earth's sea level, the difference in the times they hit the ground is going to be miniscule...damn near imperceptible. If you have a watch that measures in hundreths of seconds, it will be even less perceptible than if it measures in thousandths.
Now, keeping all of this in mind, let's raise the height of the bombs to 470 ft above ground. On a warm day (where the air resistence will be less), this difference will probably be noticable, but should still not be that noticable, certainly not as noticable as if you put a bunch of wire mesh obstacles in the way of one of the bombs.
Now extrapolate this to a building wherein bombs are going off, heating the air below, thereby reducing air resistence. Provided that all supports in the building are taken out by bombs, we should actually EXPECT to see the top of the building reach the ground at roughly the same time as the exact same building falling in vacuum. I say roughly because, while it will OBVIOUSLY not be as fast, the difference over that distance will be less perceptible than you think given the heating created by the blasts.
Is this beginning to sink in yet?
The point is, there appears to be ZERO resistance given by steel or concrete or glass or any other substance, REGARDLESS of the consideration of air, in the descent of building 7. If you can even come close to refuting this with any numerical data whatsoever, I'll eat my hat.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 17:05:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Thank you Brad, that took much longer than I feel it should have.
Now listen for a second. I have seen absolutely no evidence in what you have shown me that building 7 was demolished, and I find your interpretaion of the phrase 'pull it' as particualrly iffy, however on the other hand I have seen absolutely no evidence that building 7 wasn't demolished and unlikely as I think it I have never said that it definately wasn't. If you want to think that I will not contest it, I only contest points where I am 100% certain that you are wrong. In fact you should note that I have never ever said that Bush was not behind 11/9. You are never going to convince me about building 7 unless you come up with some new evidence. In fact any evidence at all would be good.
Please don't ask me to watch Any more google videos, every time I wathc one I become more and more convinced that they are wrong, they remind me very much of the documentaries shown in the early days of channel 5 on British television, in between endless episodes of Xena and Hercules.
MY point is that I have never said and am not saying now that building 7 definately wasn't demolished, however I think it highly unlikely.
But, my second point on which I'd like you admit you are wrong IS me saying that the twin towers definatley were not demolished with explosives.
You said they were I have prooved quite easily that they weren't, will you admit you're wrong about that as well.
At one stage you were talking about thertime and then thermate, so you could alwayus say you were wrong about the explosives and you think they used therm(i/a)te instead.
I'd go for ate rather than ite if I were you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:50:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:27:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Woody, pardon me, but you are so full of shit it is dripping out of your ears.
If a controlled demolition is set up properly, the explosive forces could force
the mass downward at a speed faster that that achievable in a vacuum. Don't get hung on the verbiage.
-------------
Actually, hang on. There is no reason that should be correct unless the explosives were being used as some kind of propulsion, which they obviously weren't.
No, the argument I was making was much simpler than that. I feel like I just outlined it pretty well below, but here it is again in case you missed it.
I was urging anyone to look at the video I posted and see the timing of the falling tower and tell me where the miscalculation was. (I'm guessing the premises used in the calculations were a little unrealistic.)
But still, for a building to even approach freefall speed enough to spark this debate about it, you have to admit, by the most rudimentary of logic, there was no resistence given by the pillars and beams that should have AT LEAST slowed a natural collapse - even the kind caused by a fire, which has never happened before or since, by the way. It simply does not add up.
You want me to admit my statement was wrong? Fine, my statement was wrong. I could have phrased my argument better. I was never arguing that something could fall by force of gravity through air as fast as by the same force of gravity through vacuum. If you even knew me a little bit you'd be ashamed to assume I'd think that.
I took advanced physics, dude. I'm not an idiot.
All I'm asking you to do is this....
a) watch the video of building 7 falling.
b) notice the timing of the fall, which is clearly marked in seconds by the film maker.
c) see how the building seems to fall at nearly freefall speed in a vacuum
d) find the error in calculation, or
e) admit that there is no resistence in that building's fall, which directly contradicts the official story of why that building fell, THEN
f) ask yourself how demolition crews had time to rig up that building that Larry Silverstein has already admitted to pulling
Look, dude, you're fighting a losing battle here. Time will vindicate my argument, and someday you will find yourself asking how you could have ever believed such baloney as you are believing now.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:45:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:40:10 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:33:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Atlas Shrugged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm beginning to like this guy
**********
Yep, Atlas shrugged and Bush farted. The rest is history. :-D
At least this takes my mind off of my dog, if only for a few seconds. . .
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:40:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:33:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Atlas Shrugged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm beginning to like this guy
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:39:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Obviously, a building isn't going to fall any faster than gravity will allow, and obviously with air involved it isn't going to fall as fast as in a vacuum, yet the video shows that the rate of fall is right at vacuum speed, meaning that even if calculations are slightly off, there is some serious explaining that needs to be done for a building to even APPROACH freefall speed in a vacuum."
There is no serious explaining that need to be done to counteract a point that is physically impossible.
There is absolutely no way that building could have fell as fast as those calculations say it did.
No way...even if it was done with controlled demolition (which is addressed in my second point) then it STILL wouldn't have fallen that fast.
It is not physically possible for the building to have fallen that fast.
That IS the explanation, the explanation is that those calculations MUST be wrong because they come up with something physically impossible.
Just admit you were wrong
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am focusing on two things one of which the entire mountain of stuff which barely makes sense and certainly isn't evidence using the real word definition of the term, does depend on.
The other point is something you said that is physically impossible.
You said that Building 7 fell at a rate only acheiveable in avacuum, this is physically impossible.
Just admit you were wrong.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:33:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Atlas Shrugged
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Note: the 4.5 seconds was off the top of my head. It might have been 6 or 6.5 seconds. I haven't seen that video since that day I posted it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:30:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:18:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
No bubba, you don't understand. A buidling falling due to controlled demolition may fall faster that a simple collapse.
But the ONLY way that something can fall with acceleration only acheiveable in a vacumm is if it is in a vacuum.
Thats why it says 'Only achievable in a vacuum'
The key word is only.
It is not possible for something to fall at speeds only acheveable in a vacuum unless it is in a vacuum.
What that site/ETS claims is physically impossible (with the proviso that New-York wasn't in a vacuum at the time)
--------------------
Why are you even focusing on this one little thing as if the entire MOUNTAIN of evidence I've presented hinges on this one thing?
Then, when you're done answering that question, watch the fucking video I linked in my comment in question. You'll see that the building does, indeed fall in about 4.5 seconds in the video.
Obviously, a building isn't going to fall any faster than gravity will allow, and obviously with air involved it isn't going to fall as fast as in a vacuum, yet the video shows that the rate of fall is right at vacuum speed, meaning that even if calculations are slightly off, there is some serious explaining that needs to be done for a building to even APPROACH freefall speed in a vacuum.
Now please, step back, stop wacking off with your own drool, and see the bigger point I was trying to make. Watch the video and see it for yourself. Do the calculations for yourself. Whatever you need to do to ease your own mind and make your world makes sense, do it. Just don't come crawling to me when you find that it doesn't add up.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:30:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Thanks for actually debating tbhe points (or one of them anyway) Bubba.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:30:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:27:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Woody, pardon me, but you are so full of shit it is dripping out of your ears.
If a controlled demolition is set up properly, the explosive forces could force
the mass downward at a speed faster that that achievable in a vacuum. Don't get hung on the verbiage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No they couldn't. That...well for starters it would require the exlopsives to push on the building from above. Like I said chek out Silverwolfs replies on the original post.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:28:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bubba, if you're really interested then this is the post which originally spawned the vacuum debate
http://www2.ubersite.com/m/81849
Silverwolf goes through it in quite some detail. I just want ETS to admit he was wrong.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:27:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Woody, pardon me, but you are so full of shit it is dripping out of your ears.
If a controlled demolition is set up properly, the explosive forces could force
the mass downward at a speed faster that that achievable in a vacuum. Don't get hung on the verbiage.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:24:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:46:56 (#)
Ranking: 1
just watching the mysteries one then will take a look.
---------------
Oh sorry, it's the same one. I forgot I'd already linked you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:22:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A very poetic account of this year's 9/11 truth march: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1211.shtml
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:22:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS (and you) is the only person attacking anyone here.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:22:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
JUST KIDDING FUCK ALL OF YOU HAHA
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:21:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Seems like you fucking assholes don't even need ETS to argue. The guy posted about his fucking vacation in New Orleans, and you savages are attacking each other on his post. Makes you wonder, huh?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:18:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No bubba, you don't understand. A buidling falling due to controlled demolition may fall faster that a simple collapse.
But the ONLY way that something can fall with acceleration only acheiveable in a vacumm is if it is in a vacuum.
Thats why it says 'Only achievable in a vacuum'
The key word is only.
It is not possible for something to fall at speeds only acheveable in a vacuum unless it is in a vacuum.
What that site/ETS claims is physically impossible (with the proviso that New-York wasn't in a vacuum at the time)
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:12:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:03:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
'all that it was trying to say' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
That is my point. ETS claimed something that is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Can you not understand that this is the point I am trying to make?
_________________________
I'm saying, and possibly ETS is saying, if a building falls to the ground because
of a controlled demolition, it MAY fall faster than it would under the effects of
simple gravity. If indeed it fell at the speed it would have in a vacuum, perhaps
there were other forces in play. . . .
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
'all that it was trying to say' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
That is my point. ETS claimed something that is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Can you not understand that this is the point I am trying to make?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 16:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bubba, seriously what you just said agrees exactly with what I'm saying.
"All it was trying to say was that the building fell at a speed achievable only in a vacuum,"
Yes.
ONLY ACHIEVABLE IN A VACUUM
The building was NOT in a vacuum.
Do you see my point?
It is really very simple.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:58:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For ChristFuckingSakes, Woody, the vacuum shit came from the 9/11 website. All it was trying to say was that the building fell at a speed achievable only in a vacuum, which indicates that forces other than gravity were in play. Whether I agree or not, at least I am smart enough to read. :)
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:52:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:42:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:54:08 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Get an intelligent argument"
I have made two points Brad, the first is based upon the fact that New York is not inspace.
The second is based on four things.
Vibrations would take 5 seconds to reach Pallasides from Ground Zero.
Vibrations do not reach Pallasides until 7 seconds after the start of collapse.
5<7
Time moves forwards.
Respond to my points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:49:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-17 19:48:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS: ""Jeremy, listen, check out this video when you get time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
There are a lot of parts that you could just fast forward through, but I'd like you to particularly watch the parts where they talk about the sound waves and the fact that building 7 fell at a rate that could only be achieved in a vacuum/resistence-free free fall.""
Also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:56:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
-------------------
Essentially, yes.
-------------------
As building 7 was not in space at the time I assume you'd like to retract this statement???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.
Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.
Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.
Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.
5 seconds < 7 seconds
QED.
Get it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:46:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
just watching the mysteries one then will take a look.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:42:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:54:08 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Get an intelligent argument"
I have made two points Brad, the first is based upon the fact that New York is not inspace.
The second is based on four things.
Vibrations would take 5 seconds to reach Pallasides from Ground Zero.
Vibrations do not reach Pallasides until 7 seconds after the start of collapse.
5<7
Time moves forwards.
Respond to my points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:49:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-17 19:48:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS: ""Jeremy, listen, check out this video when you get time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
There are a lot of parts that you could just fast forward through, but I'd like you to particularly watch the parts where they talk about the sound waves and the fact that building 7 fell at a rate that could only be achieved in a vacuum/resistence-free free fall.""
Also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:56:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
-------------------
Essentially, yes.
-------------------
As building 7 was not in space at the time I assume you'd like to retract this statement???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.
Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.
Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.
Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.
5 seconds < 7 seconds
QED.
Get it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:37:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:06:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:59:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Beano312003: Exactly.
--------
sky lobby band........
----------------
Hey, dude... Check this one out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
This is one of the better 9/11 documentaries I've seen yet. It's the first in a 3 part series. The next two have yet to come out, I think. This documentary does a pretty good job laying out the case for controlled demo.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:21:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
there's my guy... we missed you.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:59:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Beano312003: Exactly.
--------
sky lobby band........
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:04:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I just won $20. I KNEW it would be you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 15:00:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:56:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm curious as to which one of you two smelled worse when you were "doing it".
------------------
Considering I was the one riding the goat, that would be me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Beano312003: Exactly.
Shitfuck: Yep. The only thing in life worth fighting for is love. When stripped down to its supreme nakedness, human existence is nothing more than the manifestation of God's love...and it's beautiful as fuck.
Woody and Indo: Piss off.
Rad: Heh. Just don't let Rad's wife know you can change barrels like that, she might never let you sleep.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:56:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm curious as to which one of you two smelled worse when you were "doing it".
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:27:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Life is love.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 14:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:49:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you want to know the full truth of the matter, which is really none of your goddamned business as I let you in on aspects of my life because I feel compelled to at least try to inspire action, I did NOT pay my taxes owed, which was $178, by the April 2006 deadline, had instead given it to charity, and had every intention of telling the government where to shove it, when I found out that in order for a certain someone to immigrate to this country, I have to show tax information for the last three years, I made a difficult decision, compromising my principles for love.
------------------------------
If it was none of my business you shouldn't have posted about it.
You compromised your principles for convenience, nothing more. And if you are too chicken shit to stand up by not paying taxes I am sure you will never do any of the other "revolutionary" things you babble on about.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:54:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Get an intelligent argument"
I have made two points Brad, the first is based upon the fact that New York is not inspace.
The second is based on four things.
Vibrations would take 5 seconds to reach Pallasides from Ground Zero.
Vibrations do not reach Pallasides until 7 seconds after the start of collapse.
5<7
Time moves forwards.
Respond to my points.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:49:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-17 19:48:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS: ""Jeremy, listen, check out this video when you get time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
There are a lot of parts that you could just fast forward through, but I'd like you to particularly watch the parts where they talk about the sound waves and the fact that building 7 fell at a rate that could only be achieved in a vacuum/resistence-free free fall.""
Also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:56:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-12 11:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
So..let me make you state something clearly...the so called scientists trying to make money ou...oh I'm sorry trying to proove the truth about 11/9 have prooven that building 7 fell at a rate only achieveable in a vacuum.
I realise that this is a direct quote of what you said but I just want you to confirm it again.
-------------------
Essentially, yes.
-------------------
As building 7 was not in space at the time I assume you'd like to retract this statement???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.
Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.
Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.
Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.
5 seconds < 7 seconds
QED.
Get it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:32:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
subversion.
violating our infrastructure to expose the weaknesses which are so obvious but at the same time are S.E.P. (somebody's elses problem)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:30:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My primary weapon is a high grade pistol which has the feature of haveing two different sized barrels which are interchangable.
so what I could do is go out and murder someone with the one barrel, then get rid of said barrel. The weapon would still have the original barrel in case the police investigation came to me. and of course I would not be getting rid of the entire weapon. I'd be hiding it in plain sight, so to speak.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 13:12:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
so that's still two Pentagon related videos released now and neither prove anything remotely like a plane hit the building.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 12:58:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 12:52:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/911_gas_station_video_released.htm
--------------
i'm confused by the date stamp on that video... it reads 01-01-93 or am I missing something bloody obvious here?
-------------------
That got me at first too, but upon further examination, the date/time stamp is in the center and is really small. It looks to be correct, but due to the compression and size of that video, I really can't read any of it or see what's going on in the video.
At this point, I can say that this video has neither substantiated nor quelled the official story of what happened at the Pentagon.
I'd really like to see what's on the Pentagon's own cameras, you know, the ones that are all over the fucking roof of the building and would have surely seen the object approaching, but I'd settle for the Sheraton Hotel video since they seem to not want to show it.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 12:52:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/911_gas_station_video_released.htm
--------------
i'm confused by the date stamp on that video... it reads 01-01-93 or am I missing something bloody obvious here?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-18 12:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This has to be your most creative post to date. Cheers.
Submitted by morontian (user info) at 2006-09-18 12:09:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You had me at whore.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:55:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh man, that British accent must be such a turnon, you can just close your eyes and imagine you're actually banging a hot girl
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:54:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Phew, for a second there I thought you just weren't taking care of business properly
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:52:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You seen the email I sent you or not had time yet?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:28:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just want to know if Brad railed Filthy out properly.
DID YOU GUYS FUCK? COULD HE EVEN GET IT UP?
DETAILS, PEOPLE, DETAILS
-----------------
I don't kiss and tell, dude. Sorry. :(
But, yea, I hit it. And was an animal too! Albeit small furry one, but an animal nonetheless.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:49:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:15:10 (#)
Ranking: -2
After you made a big post and bragged about how much of a rebel you are, and went on and on about how it was your duty not to pay taxes in the end you buckled and did pay. Hence you are full of shit, argue all you want, make whatever excuses you want at the end of the day you are all talk.
---------------
If you want to know the full truth of the matter, which is really none of your goddamned business as I let you in on aspects of my life because I feel compelled to at least try to inspire action, I did NOT pay my taxes owed, which was $178, by the April 2006 deadline, had instead given it to charity, and had every intention of telling the government where to shove it, when I found out that in order for a certain someone to immigrate to this country, I have to show tax information for the last three years, I made a difficult decision, compromising my principles for love.
Kinda a tough decision, but not really.
So, you see, it wasn't by fear or lack of personal integrity that I finally paid the $178 to uncle sam, it was because of my personal priorities. There will be other times to challenge the system. There might not be other chances for love.
But I understand what you're saying...you're saying that since I didn't send in a request for ALL my tax dollars back - which I wouldn't have gotten back anyway - I was pussying out on my principles. This is not true, because in order to file the document to ask for my money back I would have had to lie, in which case I would have lost the moral high ground.
You understand nothing and never will. I could explain this over and over and over again, and I have, and you STILL wouldn't get it. I have accepted that.
Now go forth and kindly shut thy mouth.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bradley, why aren't you answering me?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:39:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FA: Thank you honey.
Bob: Look at my review on Foolproof's post. I need you to understand that. If you want to debate it and talk about history and the facts, I'm game.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:28:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I just want to know if Brad railed Filthy out properly.
DID YOU GUYS FUCK? COULD HE EVEN GET IT UP?
DETAILS, PEOPLE, DETAILS
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:15:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:24:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
a) I didn't pay my taxes when I told you I didn't.
b) England is just as bad as the US, so it really doesn't matter.
-------------------
After you made a big post and bragged about how much of a rebel you are, and went on and on about how it was your duty not to pay taxes in the end you buckled and did pay. Hence you are full of shit, argue all you want, make whatever excuses you want at the end of the day you are all talk.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:12:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All this New Orleans and 9-11 talk, with ZERO mention of FEMA intentionally causing Katrina?
You dissappoint me.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-18 11:11:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jamil Sharif @ Maison Bourbon.
http://www.jamilsharif.com/
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:57:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-18 05:56:10 (#)
Ranking: 1
I've always wanted to go to New Orleans.
However, your report makes it sound like it's lost a lot of its special charm.
Regardless, I'm still seething with jealousy... just so you know.
Oh, did you have any authentic Cajun food while you where there? I hear that stuff is killer!
Bummer about the music scene, though.
-----------------
I don't know how 'authentic' the food was, but I had plenty of cajun food, yes. Had the shits the entire time, I'm proud to say. We made a crawfish and shrimp boil while we stayed the cabin in Mississippi. Got the recipe from some old black creole dude on the street. That was pretty fucking awesome.
The music scene wasn't bad when you found what you were looking for. In fact, the jazz band we saw, I regretfully forget the name right now but FA has it written down, was the BUSINESS. This was probably among the finest music I've ever had the priviledge of seeing performed live. Sipping Irish coffee and hot toties, taking in this music...it was an orgy of the senses.
I recommend if you go to New Orleans, do your part to preserve the true culture and history of the city by patronising only those establishments that have authentic zydeco, jazz, and blues. That's what we tried to do.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:52:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Okay, notice how I'm still giving you a +1, the same rating I gave you before when I left, what I thought, was a polite message on this post. You left, what I thought, seemed to be a decent message (actually quite humorous) on my new post. Why the need to hand out a -1 then? In the end, it doesn't really matter, but dude - I just don't understand you...
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:43:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Whp else but a total asshole like ETS could take a nice little post about a vacation in New Orleans and turn it into the fucking Warren Commission.
You're a goddamn idiot. I bet the "reporters" and "jazz musicians" were thrilled to death to be badgered by you. I imagine there was a lot of "eye rolling" going on during these conversations.
Did you take a shower during your visit to NO?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:24:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 08:22:41 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:24:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Who says I'm just sitting here on ubersite? I've got my own plans for self-preservation, my friend, and I've got my own mental line out there in the proverbial sand. When it's crossed that will be that. I suspect at that point, I won't be the only one out there with a gun in my hand defending my rights and the rights of my children against the New World Order.
---------------------------------
You are full of shit and you know it. If you believe half of what you preached you wouldn't apy your taxes and you wouldn't have loved ones move to the evil US.
-------------------
a) I didn't pay my taxes when I told you I didn't.
b) England is just as bad as the US, so it really doesn't matter.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-18 10:10:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Once again indo you're speaking from a position of ignorance. You've had to retract things that I've corrected you on many times now - please wind your neck in so I don't have to do it again.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-18 08:22:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:24:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Who says I'm just sitting here on ubersite? I've got my own plans for self-preservation, my friend, and I've got my own mental line out there in the proverbial sand. When it's crossed that will be that. I suspect at that point, I won't be the only one out there with a gun in my hand defending my rights and the rights of my children against the New World Order.
---------------------------------
You are full of shit and you know it. If you believe half of what you preached you wouldn't apy your taxes and you wouldn't have loved ones move to the evil US.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-18 05:56:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I've always wanted to go to New Orleans.
However, your report makes it sound like it's lost a lot of its special charm.
Regardless, I'm still seething with jealousy... just so you know.
Oh, did you have any authentic Cajun food while you where there? I hear that stuff is killer!
Bummer about the music scene, though.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-09-18 03:20:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 02:14:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Two MORE videos you should all see:
9/11 Mysteries (Very good video. LOTS of questions asked of me by many of you are answered again here.)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&sourceid=zeitgeist
The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror (Lots of stuff in here about the US military use of depleted uranium in weapons. Anyone now serving in the military or serving in active combat since the last Gulf War has probably been exposed at some point to this contamination. Praise Uncle Sam, indeed.) http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=the+oil+factor
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2006-09-18 00:53:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Not once his bosses nut it out, no.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 00:16:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe that graphic designer at Westnet is going to have his job for long.
Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-09-18 00:08:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2006-09-17 23:29:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry, ETS, I couldn't finish this.
Anyway a friend of mine just rang:-
Friend: Hey, Danger, what are you doing?
Me: Working.
Friend: You on the 'net?
Me: Yes, I'm reading.
Friend: Go and check out Westnet's logo.
Me: No.
Friend: Why not?
Me: Because I'm very busy.
Friend: Aw c'mon, you're not gonna believe this..
Me: [sighs] *opens new window, types 'Westnet' into google, clicks on link...* So what am I mea.. o. m. g...
Friend: DUDE! IT'S FUCKING AWESOME!!!
Me: what in the holy hell is wrong with these people...
http://www.westnet.com.au/
___________
Someone is laughing at westnet right now
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-18 00:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:58:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
ets do you have an AIM name or email, i have a question
-----------
electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2006-09-17 23:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry, ETS, I couldn't finish this.
Anyway a friend of mine just rang:-
Friend: Hey, Danger, what are you doing?
Me: Working.
Friend: You on the 'net?
Me: Yes, I'm reading.
Friend: Go and check out Westnet's logo.
Me: No.
Friend: Why not?
Me: Because I'm very busy.
Friend: Aw c'mon, you're not gonna believe this..
Me: [sighs] *opens new window, types 'Westnet' into google, clicks on link...* So what am I mea.. o. m. g...
Friend: DUDE! IT'S FUCKING AWESOME!!!
Me: what in the holy hell is wrong with these people...
http://www.westnet.com.au/
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:58:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ets do you have an AIM name or email, i have a question
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:26:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is interesting too: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3641043830777908106
It's all about the oil. Pay attention. You might learn something, soldier boy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-17 22:24:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-09-17 21:31:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you really believe that Bush stole two elections what are you doing sitting around posting on Ubersite? If republicans have that ability, to rig elections, to ensure themselves in power, you need to go to your local gun shop and load up. You'd better pick up a weapon and defend democracy, IF you really believe that's what happened, and given your deteriorating state of mind, I think you do. Quit fucking around with that guitar, get a pistol, and go and rescue America Bradley. I have children to kill.
------------------
Who says I'm just sitting here on ubersite? I've got my own plans for self-preservation, my friend, and I've got my own mental line out there in the proverbial sand. When it's crossed that will be that. I suspect at that point, I won't be the only one out there with a gun in my hand defending my rights and the rights of my children against the New World Order.
Do I think a few traitorous scum have usurped our democracy? Fuck yes I do, and I have seen evidence to prove it.
Do I think there is no hope left for democracy? No. There is still hope, but we are gonna have to have some serious trials first to clean up the mess and send a stark warning to those who would try to repeat their mistakes. In other words, Anthony, we're gonna have to have some executions. Some heads will have to roll for this ship to be righted, so that our chosen leaders learn that if they reneg on their duty, we will come down on them harder than an anvil on a cartoon character.
Anthony, I really suggest you watch a video called "Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and one called "Orwell Rolls Over in His Grave". That's my prescription for your ignorance.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-09-17 21:31:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you really believe that Bush stole two elections what are you doing sitting around posting on Ubersite? If republicans have that ability, to rig elections, to ensure themselves in power, you need to go to your local gun shop and load up. You'd better pick up a weapon and defend democracy, IF you really believe that's what happened, and given your deteriorating state of mind, I think you do. Quit fucking around with that guitar, get a pistol, and go and rescue America Bradley. I have children to kill.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-17 21:26:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
despicable poverty tourism.
that's no different to the people who go to ground zero and have a metaphorical disaster wank.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-17 20:49:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Here it is: http://www.ubersite.com/m/93174
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-17 20:44:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
we could always shout at each