The "someone" who thought this was a good idea is the Valparaiso GOP.
Asked for comment on the backlash, the chairman said "I think we hit it spot on", "they all liked it".
Talk about tone deaf. You hit the towers spot on, eh? That's definitely what your float is about.

This seems a lot more like celebrating the attack than remembering the victims.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9986043/Indiana-9-11-parade-float-featuring-Twin-Towers-billowing-smoke-sparks-backlash.html

Man, Americans are so entitled. You have no idea how other people are treated at your borders. I have a German friend, born in the mid '70s who has to sign a declaration EVERY TIME she enters the US saying she didn't participate in war crimes during WWII.

An Iranian friend (who moved here many decades ago as a pre-teen) is so used to being detained she schedules an extra few hours every time she lands in the US. It's so common, she and her friends have a nickname for the room at the airport they get detained in. Apparently all those rooms have a poster of the twin towers, so they call it the 9-11 room.

So what's the real problem here? We search white folks coming into Canada and treat them like everyone else?

For the guy's that did the attack on the twin towers those were 'true' murder simulators.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Close.
I believe they are nearly all liars because they themselves have clearly said that all police officers are liars. They will and have admitted publicly and repeatedly that this is the case, they are trained that lying is acceptable to gain information or compliance. I also believe that they are incapable of finding it acceptable to lie in some circumstances with impunity but at the same time NOT lying about their own bad actions...and time and time again that has proven to be correct. (once a liar, always a liar) It's not >50% that are liars, it's closer to >98%.
That said, I don't think a large percentage of them are actually intentional murderers, likely <1%, but I do think that >98% will support, lie for, falsify evidence for, threaten retaliation for, and actually retaliate for that <1%. That's also been proven by their actions repeatedly. That makes them all (>98%) accessories after the fact...so maybe not murderers, but murderer adjacent.

This admitted bias is borne from decades of repeated and consistent confirmation that it's correct, both from media and personal experience. Yes, it's unfair for that <2% of 'honest cops', but not as unfair as the >98% of dishonest cops are to them by far.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when my position, that those charged with and paid to protect and serve should maybe TRY to protect, is considered prejudice. Any officer that didn't TRY would be guilty with me on the jury. (of course, lucky for them, I am honest and admit I have a bias against police and think they are all liars and completely untrustworthy, so I never serve on a jury)

EDIT: I find it hypocritical that officers demand better pay and legal leeway because they have a 'dangerous job', but when presented with MINOR danger (like water) they cry and whine that 'they shouldn't have to put themselves in danger just to save citizen's lives'. I'm sure glad we had a completely different class of officer in 2001 or hundreds more would have died in the twin towers...but it makes one question, what would they do today in the same circumstance?

Sadly I'm going to have to call 'fake'.

First, "project blue beam" is a conspiracy theory idea that claims things like the planes that flew into the twin towers were really holograms, or that there's an alien invasion program creating odd holographic images to confuse humans, or aliens are using holograms to present us with a false messiah/Jesus/Gawd/4 horsemen of the apocalypse. Uh...yeah.
Second, I notice that only a single person in the background audience has a reaction that might be attributed to seeing a whale jump at you, the rest just clap casually.
Third, there are many clear artifacts at the whale's edge where they photoshopped it in.

I wish holograms were at this level today, and they should be, but they aren't. Projecting white into a bright 3D space doesn't work without smoke or mist to project on, and even then it's only really visible when the surroundings are darker.

Your video, Homer J(ay) Simpson in New York's Twin Towers to Pee..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Prefabricated construction has a long history both in China and the west, and to some degree almost every modern building uses the technique. There is a video on here about the construction of the Empire State building for instance, and the WTC twin towers were quite prefabricated too. (*related: Steel erecting on the Empire State Building -1930s, Building the World Trade Center Towers 720p HD)

It was particularly popular in ancient Rome, and combined with the use of cranes and concrete their construction times weren't that different to the modern era (actually sometimes faster, I think the planning process must have been more streamlined).

The standardised look of ancient Chinese buildings is for the same reason, the parts were standardised to make prefabrication easier, certainly by the Ming dynasty if not earlier - see http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/705 for instance.

This particular building just does a particularly good job of it.

I like how she says "science wasn't even as certain as it is today. It is very certain today" and ignores the fact that science is very certain also of all the things they refused to accept like evolution, big bang, climate change...

Meanwhile yes, get vaccinated. Even if the studies against it were true, it in the end would mean less overall complications and deaths by more and more people not being vaccinated because religious nut jobs say not to and spread false information. Even at Copland's mega church, one of the biggest anti-vax churches in the country is now encouraging vaccination after an outbreak there, though they blame it on somebody visiting the church who had it... which is of course the f'n point, to be immune when, if somebody who has it, comes by.

Even nearly 11 years ago when my eldest son was born, we had a moment of skepticism over it, but in the end decided to risk it. He did end up with Aspergers, but we don't blame the vaccinations. And his own personal hard work (and those around him), he no longer needs an IEP or regular counseling. Even if it was remotely possible that the Aspergers came from it, still better the risk of that than the risk of what would happen if nobody was vaccinated and he got measles. The right loves showing pictures of the twin towers as justification for torture, how about seeing pictures of children with measles before the vaccine came out?

I'd suggest this true as the result of an insidious editing process which is well-honed over to the National Broadcasting Company, sieg heil. Not 13 years has passed and there's a fucking 'memorial' on the site that charges a $24 admission over a mass grave selling souvenirs and serving hamburgers.

"It was them tuurrrisst that demolished those buildings with airplanes, that's why the country is' a police state now (and forever)."

I'm surprised Mac Donald's doesn't have a goddamn twin-towers fries to go with your Freedom burger and Shanksville (pop. 245, no one will know) shake at that one...Sick, twisted, shit.

>> ^sepatown:

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?


Yeah, that's edgy -- but not as edgy as backing it with the Benny Hill music!

>> ^sepatown:

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?


Only towers were harmed in the making of this video though

too soon?

>> ^sepatown:

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?

Original story: http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/06/twin-towers-still-stand-on-film/

http://videosift.com/video/Twin-Tower-Cameos-by-Dan-Math for the original video, that the story referred to, on VS.