>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building
Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?


So, because you've seen a building be demolished and it looks the same as that, you think that that's the only plausible explanation for the WTC to collapse? Despite the fact that you know aeroplanes crashed into them? If you actually looked at how the WTC were built (centre steal core with an outer web) and then considered what happened (fires heated the steal trusses between the inner and outer portions to an extent that they started to bow) and also watched some actual footage of the side of the building being pulled inwards JUST as would happen if that was happening, and then saw that piece of the building actually give way and break, starting the chain reaction of the building collapse...

Well, then you might think 'yup, that seems pretty darn plausible to me'. Compare that to... well, let's see, we first have to have explosives planted around the place somehow... in such a way that NO ONE noticed... then we have to get this whole aeroplane crashing into the buildings thing to happen... THEN we have to have the building actually fail at the point where the aircraft entered (because there is video SHOWING it fail there first just as it starts to collapse), and then we somehow have to have some demolition work in such a way as people wouldn't see any further chargers going off.

It is such a complete and utter fools errand trying to suggest that they were brought down by demolition.

Then you have to ask who would do that? (sure, you can come up with a lot), but then you would also have to think... WHY would they come up with this convoluted way of doing things when there are much, much easier ways that would have just as easily been blamed on terrorists.

*sigh*

>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building

Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..

And the flimsy evidence that Usama Bin Laden and 19 Hijackers did it managed to convince you?
I don't know about you but I didn't see any evidence that proved he/they did anything. Heck even the FBI doesn't think there's enough evidence to connect him to it.


I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building.

What's wrong with being a Ron Paul supporter. Seems to me if everyone had listened to him in the 80's we wouldn't be in the shit right now.

I know bugger all about his policies really, but I just found it funny that in this video the guy connected the two... and I thought 'hey, yeah, he is an avid supporter of him too'. Nothing against RP, don't know enough to have anything against him.

And UFO's are real. The designation is a fairly normal term. It means unidentified flying object. Not believing in them is like not believing the sun will rise.

Oh, don't get all semantic. You know exactly what I'm talking about. The belief that there is some enourmous coverup that intelligent aliens have landed/crashed here, somehow met ONLY the US government and they are using their tech for weapons research.

I have no doubt there is other life out there, what I don't believe is that they have come here, only been seen by yokels etc. and left it at that. There are SO many things you can see in the sky that can be misconstrued as an alien spacecraft. Until I see incontrivutable proof of, or meet an alien (or ghost for that matter, same deal there) I won't believe in them... there's no proof at ALL that they exist.

Neeeeeeeeeeowwwwwww, here comes the big aeroplane, open wide lil joey, let AC feed ya

Whoa, and thank you!!! It's UHOH!!!! How are you??

In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
*promote <3 bjork

The times have changed, this video has been sifted!
previous attempt:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Architecture-in-Helsinki-Do-The-Whirlwind-byP-Robertson

Pixelart video by Paul Robertson
http://probertson.livejournal.com

AIH: http://architectureinhelsinki.com/

Lyrics "Do The Whirlwind":

She said you'd given up,
Your folks told me you should be left alone,
On a mountain top knocking the aeroplanes down with stones.
Do the whirlwind and carry the hope that stings all night long,
Don't abandon him 'cause he quivers when he hears your song,

Believe me, it's safe to see.
At least be confused about right and wrong,
Plan to settle down,
Over the moon under the sun.
Do the whirlwind and shotgun the seat that beats that beats
Hanging on to the one you love
To keep keepin', sleepin', dreamin' on.

Folks given up under the quivers and lines,
You do the whirlwind,
Don't abandon,
Get a handle of yourself, son.

>> ^NordlichReiter:But if it would have says MCCAIN is a shriveled up prune you guys would have been OK with it right?

Oh those darn prunes that blow demselfs up at vacation hotels, and disco's, and embassy's, and take aeroplanes and smash em into giant skyscrapers filled with peoples!!!

Yeah! Prunes, terrorists... It's all subjective.

It was not meant to unfold as such, perhaps...hence yer aeroplane fetish is now made public, and all is as it should be-kulpims, you are welcome to manage it, should it fail to attract a caretaker, and will be there for you when you need to tickle it.....choggie makes channels, and then abandons them onna whim taking flight according to whatever it is according to....free will??? Oh well, like a channel was needed to make this p[lace more compartmentalized and goofier than it already is....I say, Use, tweak, initiate, and otherwise play with stuff, with a view to new and improved, for everyone.....

>> ^spoco2:
You do all know that aeroplanes are designed to easily take lightning strikes? Because of their metal bodies, the lighting just runs around the outside on its way to ground.
By way of further explanation:

A handful of jets have been blown up by lightning, including a Pan American flight in 1963 that killed 83 people. But scientists have since figured out how to mostly harness Nature's fury. In the early 1980s, NASA (whose shuttle launch pad was struck by lightning the other day) flew a jet into a thunderstorm at 38,000 feet. It was hit 72 times in 45 minutes, and much was learned. Commerical planes are still hit about once a year, by some estimates. A strike typically starts at a wingtip, nose or tail and courses through the skin, which is often made of aluminum—a good conductor. The plane's lights might flicker, but most of the energy just heads back into the sky if there are no gaps in the skin. Modern jets often employ advanced composite materials, which are not so conductive, so metal has to be added to the composites to carry the lightning.

You do all know that aeroplanes are designed to easily take lightning strikes? Because of their metal bodies, the lighting just runs around the outside on its way to ground.

By way of further explanation:

A handful of jets have been blown up by lightning, including a Pan American flight in 1963 that killed 83 people. But scientists have since figured out how to mostly harness Nature's fury. In the early 1980s, NASA (whose shuttle launch pad was struck by lightning the other day) flew a jet into a thunderstorm at 38,000 feet. It was hit 72 times in 45 minutes, and much was learned. Commerical planes are still hit about once a year, by some estimates. A strike typically starts at a wingtip, nose or tail and courses through the skin, which is often made of aluminum—a good conductor. The plane's lights might flicker, but most of the energy just heads back into the sky if there are no gaps in the skin. Modern jets often employ advanced composite materials, which are not so conductive, so metal has to be added to the composites to carry the lightning.

Those of you saying that being in a car during a lighting storm isn't safe have no idea what a Faraday cage is obviously. It's not so much that the car isn't grounded (as hey, that much voltage will easily just arc over to the ground), what a car gives you is a cage surrounding you that is made of metal, far more conductive than you, and a path of far less resistance for the electricity... hence, you're safe inside

Unless it's a plastic car.

Then you're fucked.

Which is also why Aeroplanes (yes, we spell it that way in Australia) which start moving to other materials for their skin actually have to insert metal back into them to give a path for lighting to follow lest the plane be hit.

I just love internet know it alls who don't really know anything.

And yes, many people have survived lighting strikes. But yeah, this would seem to be pretty darn fakey fake fake.

I agree, I would love to know followups on some of those, like the guy who got hit by the aeroplane wing, he looked like he was out cold.

Also, if some are indeed fake, that'd be great to know too

Or, as it's known in Australia "Flying High". True, and from wikipedia apparently it was only us and the Philippines who called it that... odd.

I mean, we call the Aeroplanes, but so does England.

Actually, from further reading in Wiki, it had a tonne of brilliant names around the world:

German: The Unbelievable Flight in a Crazy Airplane (Die unglaubliche Reise in einem verrückten Flugzeug)
French: Is There a Pilot on the Plane? (Y a-t-il un pilote dans l'avion?)
Portuguese (for release in Brazil), Fasten your seatbelts,the pilot is gone (Apertem os cintos, o piloto sumiu)
Italian It's the craziest plane in the world (L'aereo più pazzo del mondo)
Finnish Hey, we're flying! ( Hei, me lennetään!)
Spanish Land as you can (Aterriza como puedas)
Latin America And where is the pilot? (and ¿Y dónde está el piloto?)
Norway Help, we're flying (Hjelp, vi flyr)
Swedish Look, we're flying (Titta vi Flyger)

Yowsers... I wonder what film has the most different names around the world?

Oh, and a brilliant film, I saw recently the one of the films it was spoofing (Airport 1975) and loved seeing some of the plot points they were spoofing.

Great film, with many lines that are quoted regularly in our household.

I visited an alien planet with a friend in the last book I read.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about being more or less productive than other forms of media. I know reading comprehension is hard when your brain has been fried by video games, but try to follow me here.

In the first place, watching tv or listening to the radio isn't as addictive as video games. 2nd, What's the practical point of learning to play a flight simulator on an xBox 360? You'd develop muscle memorization that would make you better at playing the xBox 360. You'd be hard pressed to find a guy that spent more than two hours a day playing video games that earns more than me. Ambition and video games don't mix. I saw it in high school and college. I know some guy that stopped leaving the house after World of Warcraft came out. I mean he literally goes days without leaving the house. That's not uncommon.

I don't need to site articles. It's common sense. Video games are bad for you. Children often become addicted to video games into their adulthood.

...and the point you make about TV, Radio, and other forms of media being an equal waste of time...I don't think good parents let their children spend any length of time doing those things, either.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Okay, there's no point debating this with you then. If you think playing video games is less productive than sitting in front of the tv or lying in bed reading a book or listening to the radio then you obviously don't know jack about productivity.
Tell me, whats the best way to learn how to fly an aeroplane other than actually flying one? Reading a book? Talking to a pilot? Or maybe "playing" a flight sim.
How about learning some ancient history, say battle tactics of ancient generals of the roman army. There simply is no better way to get that kind of info into the minds of children (or adults for that matter) than to let them play around with their own minuture armies in video games like the total war series. And let's not even start on Civilization or Sim City. Both games created with the express purpose of education and damn succesful at it too.

Socialising is being redifind by the internet and thanks in no small part to multiplayer video gaming. Kids are learning all sorts of things about teamwork in games like battlefield and counterstrike, and believe me there is very little as entertaining as playing through a video game with a couple of friends. When was the last time you were able to visit an alien planet with a friend in a book?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I never said that playing violent video games causes violence. I feel it's a waste of time and talent and a lot less stimulating than reading books and interacting with other people. It's been proven that video games are addictive and it's common sense that it isn't productive behavior to sit in front of the xbox all day.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
I'm sure you've heard of google, have fun with that.

But here, let me help you get started I'll simply post a link for the wikipedia article on the issue.

Also please note that since the rise of violent videogames in modern western society, violent crime has seen a dramatic drop. Coinsidence? Maybe, but still interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_violence#Viewpoints_of_the_video_game_controversy



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Okay. Do it, then. Show me a million articles that claim that playing violent video games is good for small children.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Um, that has to be the lamest example of an arguement against video games I've ever seen. Never mind that I can spend 5 mins in google and find a million more reputably sourced articles that claim the exact opposite.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/12/27/2003394285

In reply to this comment by Fade:
no such thing as being ruined by video games. Video games provide a far better means to teach and learn than any other medium in history. Interactivity is teh future and you will assimilate.

I just LOVE people who state as fact things like 'There's no way a building like that would fall like that without explosives' and 'The WTCs just wouldn't have fallen like that because the fire wasn't hot enough', as if they actually KNOW anything on the subject, and aren't just repeating hearsay and complete lack of knowledge.

When having a quick run through wiki articles like this and the like I have to go with ACTUAL ENGINEERS on this one, and Gorgonheap above... Just stop for a second and try and logically work out the probability of your conspiracy theory being true... then work out the probability of what we ACTUALLY saw being true... then think about a little thing called Occam's razor

What we saw:Two Aeroplanes hitting the twin towers (pretty unbelievable in itself, but it HAPPENED)...
Simple explanation of why the towers fell down? Two F*CKING BIG planes ploughed into them, they were NOT designed to have 747s plough into them.
Conspiracy theory? "Two planes ploughed into them AND previously explosives were planted AND structures weakened AND no one noticed"

I'm going to go with the first one... just me.