Your video, German reaction to UK PM Liz Truss resignation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My God is better than yours
And the walls of my house are so thick
I hear nothing at all

I followed you out in the storm
But it carried you off
And I burned every picture of yours
Was that not enough?

My gun is bigger than yours
So let's arm the masses
And see what the bastards do then
Walking tall once set us apart
Now we're down on all fours
Do you cry my name in the dark
Like I do yours?

These storms are getting stronger now
Trusses all bend and sway
Lightning hits, the power goes out in the fray
As the waves crash high
And the shoreline disappears
I will scream to the sky
"Hey, people live here."

My dreams are not unlike yours
They long for the safety
And break like a glass chandelier
But there's laughter and oh there is love
Just past the edge of our fears
And there's chaos when push comes to shove
But it's music to my ears

May you be in Heaven before the Devil knows you're dead
May these winds be always at your back

'Cause when we're all just ghosts
And the madness overtakes us
We will look at the ashes
And say, "People lived here."

From the penthouse to the holy martyr
Sea to shining sea
From the coffins full of kindergarteners
Is this what you call free?
From the hate that drips from all your crosses
Are your hands so clean?

There's a wildfire and it's spreading far
From sea to shining sea

When we're all just ghosts
And the madness overtakes us
I will scream to the sky, yeah I'll scream to the sky
Yeah I'll scream to the sky
"Hey, people live here."

Is this an attempt to remove the jeep from a concrete-like substance? I note nobody is even remotely sinking into the "mud" on foot anywhere near it. Looks like they came back after the ground dried out.

I saw this wicked rescue setup once. It basically was a crane they assembled on site, using those three-sided trusses people use for radio towers, and would lift the vehicle mostly up out of the mud instead of just drag it sideways.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

The man's eyes in photo #6 -- haunting and sad.

In reply to this comment by radx:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/bombenfund
-experten-sprengen-blindgaenger-fotostrecke-86715.html

250kg bomb couldn't be defused and removed safely, so they had to detonate it on site in Munich last night. Couple of roof trusses seem to have caught on fire, but the pile of ~10000 sandbags caught most of it, it seems. Nobody was injured.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?



From your link "Debunking 9/11":

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time."

This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

Also:
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

And:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

What is concerning is that thermite was rule out because of the noise, and that 1000 lbs would be needed.

Also, no one has explained the UL testing on the steel for 6 hrs at 1000C?

Finally, what is troubling is that softening girders causeing collapse, fine, steel is weakened at 1400degF, but the core wouldn't fall. Certainly wouldn't break apart.

It's funny, I am what Lynne Truss would call a stickler, what David Foster Wallace would call a SNOOT, and what most people I meet call a grammar nerd. The “less” in “15 items or less” does not really bother me. I understand that there are necessary evils in signage. However, your use in “less syllables” & “less letters” made me shudder.>> ^jwray:

"Less" has less syllables, has less letters, and gets the same point across while using less paper.

^Sagemind:
What evidence? The government had all debris and steel shipping out of the country ASAP and wouldn't let anyone near it to examine it! As well as all debris from the Pentagon!
And yes, Actual Thermite was found in the debris before it was whisked away!

Yes, it is unfortunate that those materials are no longer available to be viewed. It would clear up untold numbers of these wobbly theories in an instant.

However, to continue believe that a conspiracy this big would have no whistleblowers is absurd to the highest degree. You would have to live in a fantasy world, having watched too many shitty action movies, to believe that to have participated in something this big wouldn't weigh on the conscience of at least one person. Oh right, the government and/or billionaire cabal would have silenced them, and subsequently anyone who would have spoken up about that mysterious death, and then anyone who would speak up about their death, etc etc etc. Doesn't that sound absolutely absurd and wholly unbelievable to anyone else?

It's almost like belief in these conspiracy theories has become a religion for some people. They believe what they believe because they believe it, and no amount of rational, reasonable explanation or debunking or actual proof will make them see things differently. It seems to become comfortable to believe because the theories are consistent and controllable, unlike life, which is often chaotic and unexplainable and uncontrollable.

Oh goodness, Thermite! It was proven that no amount of thermite could have done anything to the steel trusses inside the WTC, either through weakening them or cutting through the steel itself. There is no way to make thermite do the damage that all these ridiculous sites claim, like making a clean cut through steel. It burns way to quickly and chaotically to do anything to steel, especially stuff that thick. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

>> ^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*

NIST has a comprehensive report detailing how this particular structure collapsed, and how come others that have either been engulfed in flames for DAYS, OR also hit by a plane, did not collapse in the same manner.

It has to do with the way the floors were constructed around a central pillar.

Trusses linked to the outer frame, and the inner core with a few simple angle clips to hold and share the load, with no free-standing pillars like conventional towers. This gave the floors much much more open floor space than any other tower out there...with obvious advantages.

Take some of the clips out of one floor thats hooked into the outer shell, and you have to share the load of the floor on the rest of the clips.

Shock load the clips and you stress them to a point where they cant hold as much weight prior to a collapse as they used to.

Strip the fire-proofing material off the steel that was rated to handle fires much much hotter than jet fuel could possibly provide, expose said steel to a mix of noxious gasses (created by burning old office equipment) that destroyed basic bonds holding the alloys in the steel together and you turn said steel into iron...drastically lowering its strength potential.

Heat the iron up, she melts...more clips fail, floor pancakes onto one below it. The one below is shock loaded and snaps instantly.....domino effect ensues, tower collapses into its own footprint at close to free-fall.

And yes, concrete can vaporise if you provide enough force.

Other towers either hit by a plane, or had been exposed to much hotter fires for far longer, had drastically different internal designs. They had a series of cubes connecting to one another, essentially an intricate pattern of concrete covered steel beams criss-crossing their way through the entire structure.

Take one beam out (either by fire or collision)...big whoop, theres 300 others to do its job. Not so with twin towers, the clips holding the trusses were limited, and a significant portion of them on the central impact floor were taken out in the collision.

//-- The Load Out -- //
Now the seats are all empty
Let the roadies take the stage
Pack it up and tear it down
They're the first to come and the last to leave
Working for that minimum wage
They'll set it up in another town
Tonight the people were so fine
They waited there in line
And when they got up on their feet they made the show
And that was sweet but I can hear the sound
Of slamming doors and folding chairs
And that's a sound they'll never know
Now roll them cases out and lift them amps
Haul them trusses down and get'em up them ramps
'Cause when it comes to moving me
You know you guys are the champs
But when that last guitar's been packed away
You know I still want to play
So just make sure you got it all set to go
Before you come for this piano

But the band's on the bus
And they're waiting to go
We've got to drive all night and do a show in Chicago
or Detroit, I don't know
We do so many shows in a row
And these towns all look the same
We just pass the time in our hotel rooms
And wander 'round backstage
Till those lights come up and we hear that crowd
And we remember why we came

Now we got country and western on the bus, R&B
We got disco in eight tracks and cassettes in stereo
And we've got rural scenes & magazines
We've got truckers on the CB
We've got Richard Pryor on the video
And we got time to think of the ones we love
While the miles roll away
But the only time that seems too short
Is the time that we get to play
People you've got the power over what we do
You can sit there and wait or you can pull us through
Come along, sing the song
You know that you can't go wrong
'Cause when that morning sun comes beating down
You're going to wake up in your town
But we'll be scheduled to appear
A thousand miles away from here

// -- Stay -- //
People stay just a little bit longer
We want to play just a little bit longer
Now the promoter don't mind
And the union don't mind
If we take a little time
And we leave it all behind and sing
One more song
I want you stay just a little bit longer
Please, please, please
Say you will, say you will

Best are areas of major structural support in the home.....doorways, rounded arches even better-the bathtub is suggested because most bathrooms are small, framed-in rooms with no large expanses...small, tight trusses.

best place is inna ditch outside the home......better yet, crawl into the culvert in the driveway.....

nice poem! Thanks for correcting Ms Truss's title. I am not a good copy editor, and I can only do it at all if I am seriously in the zone. One of my heroes told me that, "A writer is someone for whom writing is harder than for normal people."

Here is my favorite comment on apostrophes: http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html