By chance, are you outside the US? Here's the direct link:

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BB73C1402FDC069BAB33402C0DE5900543

Please let me know if you can't view that either.

In reply to this comment by jimnms:
Video isn't working for me, all I get is a black box with a play button that is grayed out.

Video isn't working for me, all I get is a black box with a play button that is grayed out.

Sorry, what did they lie about?

If you mean destroying evidence, I believe that the structures of the planes were unlikely to survive the collapse of buildings of this height and magnitude. They didn't destroy evidence. They cleaned up a freaking huge mess... and terribly slowly I might add. People were endlessly complaining about how slowly even. There was much more examination done of the plane fragments from the pentagon crash
From the popular mechanics debunking page:
"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This has to be my last post here on account of time. Have fun if it continues.

We should have the black box records from the planes released (at least in part) to coroberate something, certainly not everything on those is classified material.
AND
the release of tapes of the pentagon hit, that would be nice.
The government could deal a fatal blow to the conspiracy theories in a flash.
conspiracy or idiocy? probably idiocy but...

yeah, Rotty's one liner got them lefites screamin' for the hills...
all hail the Rotty, my new teacher, koan master, arhat...

great rotty dead and turned to clay
might fill a hole to keep the wind away

OK, you have my attention. What would you like me to read?

In reply to your comment:
“In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.”

In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.

I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

In reply to your comment:
“ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.

No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.

I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.

This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.”

ShakaUVM: I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

No, I don't want "to take their side." However, I do want to continue to point out that the government is directly responsible for creating an environment in which these theories are encouraged to run rampant.

For example:
The contents of the jetliners' black boxes have never been made public.

Records of the alleged calls from the planes have never been produced.

Interviews with air traffic controllers have been destroyed.

The steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings was rapidly recycled without forensic examination.
The FBI, by its own admission, has failed to turn up "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the plot.

If people are expected to accept the official story, simple measures such as declassifying this information would go a long way towards lifting the veil of mystery. I will continue to press for an answer that actually satisfies the facts of the day. Until the government begins to release this information, I'm not sure how any rational, thinking person can be convinced one way or the other.

i wake up in a bed in an all-white room. there's a tall black box at the foot of the bed...

I've read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, and I love the image from 51:20 where all these papers contradicting him are piled up in front of him- "Have you read this?" "No"

Awesome mental image. I wish I could have seen it.

59:15- "didn't they learn anything from the Nixon Administration? Burn the evidence!!!"

bamdrew- I would say tune in around 64:30- When he explains how ID is trying to "jump the cue" so to speak- get their BS taught in science class, even though it isn't science. Even though it gets totally pwned by real science, even though it offers absolutely nothing constructive to the scientific process- they are just trying to use a political process, instead of a scientific one.

Yes, I would say if you want the sound bite version, watch from 64:30 to 69:30. It's 5 minutes, but he quite succintly and eloquently explains exactly why ID is NOT science and why it is dangerous to America

You all know that both Mac OS and Windows XP sucks compared to the might of Linux. Yes! Am throwing down on a 3 way OS battle!!!

Actually in purely economic terms the fact that Apple has allowed dual booting on their latest boxes clearly signifies that they want to capture a larger market. Which they will because no beige box or Dell black box can compare to the pearly goodness of a Apple.

I used MacOS for graphical design and I absolutely hated it. I mean one mouse button? What? I felt like I was handicapped.

For those interested, are these firemen lying?
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/17860.htm

Honorary firefighter Mike Bellone claims he was approached by unknown bureau agents a short time after he and his partner Nicholas DeMasi, a retired New York firefighter, found three of the four "black boxes" among the WTC rubble before January 2002. Bellone is retired and was made an honorary New York fireman for his efforts after 911. DeMasi also recently retired from Engine Co. 261, nicknamed the "Flaming Skulls," after serving a brief stint after 911 with the fire department's marine unit.

"It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back,' said NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz. "I can't remember another case which we did not recover the recorders."

http://www.howstuffworks.com/black-box.htm

One thing the NTSB learned from experience: be careful where you put these things. Recorders used to be located near the point where the wings joined the fuselage, the theory being that this was the most heavily constructed part of the plane. Problem was, being heavily constructed, the parts of the plane falling on the recorders often crushed them. Now the recorders are put in the tail section so that, assuming your typical crashing plane goes in nose first, the forward part of the airframe absorbs most of the impact.
---
Crash impact - Researchers shoot the CSMU down an air cannon to create an impact of 3,400 Gs (1 G is the force of Earth's gravity, which determines how much something weighs). At 3,400 Gs, the CSMU hits an aluminum, honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash.

Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.

Snake, your attitudes been very trying. I've spent more time than most would reading through your links, instead of "clicking it off the screen because it doesn't correlate with (my) opinion", so please keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself.

I look at the site, and their arguments do the same preaching I commented on earlier. "ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs"
Yes, it's cute to use a writing style trick to invert the meaning of the term conspiracy theorist to make yourself look right, but it doesn't make you right.

Stand-down? Insider trading? Controlled demolition? Oh come on - this is an insult to the term "documented proof".

In the end, your side arguments rest as much on Bush's incompetence as mine: I argue he sat there like an idiot because he is one. You argue he sat there like an idiot b/c he planned it all along.

If he planned it all along and sat there in a way to 'betray his prior knowledge', he would just as much an idiot since he should've been ready to "act" more surprised.

That's the fun and infuriating thing about these guessing games - you can so easily get into a loop of, "but that's just what they *want* us to think!"

Here's some more rational explanations for what happened. The towers did not "break the laws" of gravity:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5566

Black smoke: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Black boxes: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_boxes.html
Sorry joedirt, definitely found them on two flights; and no rational person will be surprised if you have trouble finding anything in the wreckage of the WTCs - literally tons of materials were pulverized into dust, as the video above reminds you.

Ah, "how the secret service knew the president and the schoolchildren weren't in danger".
Do you seriously believe that if they had a conspiracy that diabolical they would let the Secret Service know about it?

Your faith in their ability to keep a secret is laudable, if questionable.

As for the "my bad", the posts are getting long and I have this annoying habit of not typing out what I'm thinking. This is what I omitted in my last comment re: Bush "this is what happens when a cokehead is elected president." Since The Supremes appointed him to the Oval Office I was worried he'd do something stupid. And there you have it.

On the campaign trail we suckered him into thinking/saying that the PM of Canada is Jean Poutine. We like our fries with gravy and cheese, but not *that* much.

And yes, if you assume that the London bombers did not use any logic but instead randomly selected their targets, then it *is* improbable. But it's reasonable to think they would've gone after a certain part of London, and the fact that the Visors did it too is more of an affirmation that he knew what he was doing as a security consultant.

In downtown Toronto they performed drills around the biggest most valuable skyscrapers. The drills take the better part of a day to conduct, so you have a pretty big window of probability interception to play with.

Black boxes, which are orange, are not magical. I'm not impressed my made-up statistics. What's your source on 99.9%?