All the first hand accounts from people like Mr. Rodriguez, the firefighter testimony and the journalists seem to quantify the existence of explosives being set off.

Are you truth debunkers saying that these people don't know what they saw, felt and heard even though they were giving eyewitness accounts at ground zero? If we can't believe those who were able to escape being victims of this heinous act then we should just take a quasi-government controlled agency at it's word? I think not.

"I'm a high school teacher"

Correct. What you're not is:

1. A structural engineer specializing in skyscrapers.
2. A mathematician.
3. A Ph.D. in physics.
4. An expert in video analysis.
5. An expert in forensics.
6. An architect.
7. An expert in failure analysis.
8. The guy who designed the building in the first place.

You know who ARE all these things? The people who released the NIST report. The people who had more video than you. The people who put their hands on the steel. The people who interviewed eyewitnesses. The people who ran the labs. The people who ran repeated simulations of the collapse based on models about a million times more complex than your free software and video off the internet.

So what you, and the rest of the chowderheads in the Scooby-Doo Conspiracy Movement, are telling us is that all these people are 1. lying 2. complicit in mass murder and 3. THEY WOULDA GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR US DARNED KIDS!

Thanks for being tools for Osama, you bags of shit, now go analyze how your heads got shoved so far up your asses.

This has fucking happened to me once! I was awake, but completely paralyzed. I could slowly clench my jaws together, which brought me out of it. Weirdest thing that ever happened to me.

Now that I think of it, there may have been a noodly appendage touching me in places...

>> ^rottenseed:
Sleep paralysis.
It's the same condition that explains a lot of "alien abduction" cases. Pretty much your mind fabricates your hallucination based on your beliefs, obviously. More proof on how lack of knowledge can lead people to perpetuate their own stupid beliefs.

>> ^chtierna:
So... one abnormal question that always pops up in my head when I see super religious people is how they have sex. Do they get it on real good and hard or is it like they are ashamed to even touch each other? I cant even see them saying anything dirty...


You have all sorts...some will go at it and do just about anything you'd expect from a monogamous, sexually active couple (with the possible exception of talking dirty), and some are downright Victorian, only having sex to make babies (generally under the sheets and in the dark) and completely oblivious to the concept of female orgasm. If they'd take a look at the Bible itself, it tends to support being wild and crazy, so long as it stays monogamous, but don't try telling them that

>> ^gargoyle:
He has his own ministry now. Hmmm, that story should help with the collection plate.


Makes you wonder how many millionaire ministers even believe their BS, or if they just found an audience that they can easily exploit for loads of cash.

>> ^chtierna:
Good find ! I saw this one somewhere before.
^ I believe he believes what he saw. He could have had some dream or hallucination brought on by religious fervor, but I dont think he would necessarily be either crazy or lying.

I agree. It could also be something related to lucid dreaming.

Canadian citizens awoke today to the tragic news that an overnight meteorite impact failed to destroy Alberta. Eyewitnesses say the Armpit of Canada was still exactly where it was last night before they went to bed, despite being impacted by roughly 1/2 ton of falling space rocks.

"Oh, geeze -- the least it coulda done was take out Saskatchewan, eh?" said Calgary resident Bob Horton. "Perfectly good meteorite impact and it didn't even scorch Edmonton! What do we gotta do to get ridda this place, eh? Can't the Americans test nuclear weapons or something here? I mean, talk about Hoserville!"

The Prime Minister said free beer and back-bacon would be provided to the sufferers of the non-destruction of the Provence. Further, he said Canada would look into the idea of carving a giant target into Alberta's endless wheat fields in case there's another bollide looking for a place to impact.

History repeats itself. The same thing (on a much, much larger scale) happened during the Korean War when thousands of suspected Communists were executed by Korean forces while American troops watched. I'm pretty certain in that case the Pentagon ordered troops to prevent it if possible but given how mercilessly and efficiently the Korean forces were killing it proved impossible to stop.

George Washington in fact faced a similar problem on his first military expedition. Charged with removing the French from Fort Duquesne, he ambushed and captured French forces commanded by Joseph Coulon de Jumonville. Jumonville surrendered, but to Washington's horror the Native American allies that had accompanied him on the expedition slaughtered Jumonville and a dozen other prisoners after the surrender. Just shows the problems you can face when you "ally" with the natives. Just because they're you're allies doesn't mean they're going to listen to your commands.

I agree with roughy. In a war zone, stuff like this happens. I don't agree with the Pentagon trying to pretend like it never happened (they did that in the Korean War incidents too), but I'm not really sure they're under any obligation to actually report the killings since they occurred on the Afghan forces' watch.

I have to laugh at the video eyewitness that says the Americans were in charge. It's pretty clear from other news sources that the Afghan forces at the time were led by tribal warlords that were really more interested in settling old feuds and expanding their power than freeing the country from the Taliban. If they worked with Americans, it was because it was in their own interest and I highly doubt any "command" issued by an American soldier would have had much value. I imagine the Special Forces soldiers that were there found themselves in the same situation as Washington, trying to reason with people who simply don't think the same way about such things as prisoner treatment.

Since we're scrutinizing Fox's motivations, I'll say that I think the "time limitations" are suspicious. Either it was the worst-planned segment ever, or they were cut off for going off-script.

Given that his introduction & first question took a full minute, they cut to commercial after only 2 minutes, then return for only 30 seconds before the end of the show? Seems like something they'd give the standard 6-8 minutes to ordinarily.

I also agree with rougy about what Fox had brought these guests on for -- likely to tell an eyewitness account of Russian brutality.

I think there's a larger issue we should be worried about here though. American media scarcely mentions that what these guests said is the typical response of Ossetians.

How many other reports have even mentioned the fact that Ossetia wanted independence from Georgia?

I'm not excusing what Russia's doing, but this story is filled with layer after layer of shades of grey, and American media reports it as "Russia bad, Georgia friend", and talks about how agressively we should respond to Russia's violation of Georgia's sovreignty.

The groundwork is being laid here for military action, not diplomacy, and it is not just Fox News doing it.

Pinky,

I agree that the Mountain Meadows Massacre movie was horribly made film and made of mockery of the horrific event.

As to your question about the translation method depicted in the Southpark episode, its interesting that the church always shows pictures and gives the impression that the translation was literal, with Joseph going through the plates, page by page. Eyewitness accounts, however, back up the Southpark depiction:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

(David Whitmer-- one of the three witnesses, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12. as quoted in the July Ensign (Mormon magazine) by Apostle Russell Nelson)"

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm

There are other quotes to corroborate this, including from his wife Emma and Oliver Cowdrey, his principle scribe.

Hypocrisy of the "Repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada" Movement

As soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada. This wave is reminiscent of a Soviet campaign to free Luis Corvalán from the "fascist regime" of Augusto Pinochet thirty five years ago. The scenario is strikingly similar. A "victim" held by "fascist regimes" this time run by Bush and Harper, and a public outcry for justice. Except for the fact that Luis Corvalán didn't kill anyone and didn't fight for a terrorist group that wants to impose Sharia.

The "repatriate Khadr" crowd describes him as "a child", "a kid", "a boy", and even "a torture victim", with no facts to substantiate the torture claims notwithstanding. They complain about Khadr being mistreated, again, without anything to back up their claims. Some of them are outraged about "child abuse." And they all scream for justice.

They want justice? OK, let's talk about JUSTICE. What about justice for Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was (according to an eyewitness) murdered by this "child"? What about justice for Tabitha Speer, who is a widow because of this "kid"? What about justice for Taryn and Tanner Speer, who are left without a father by this "a boy"? And what about all those Afghani civilians and NATO troops who are a little bit safer because this "torture victim" is behind bars? How many of these "repatriate Khadr" hypocrites concern themselves with justice for real victims? In literally hundreds of posts, we couldn't find a single one.

One would ask, what is the reason for this idiocy? The answer is simple. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance. Let's forget for a second that Omar Khadr killed Christopher Speer. Let's forget that Khadr's father was an al Qaeda financier. Let's forget that Khadr's family is known for it being al Qaeda sympathizers. Let's just remember what this "child" was fighting for in Afghanistan.

This is what Taliban-imposed Sharia looks like in real life: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2000/07/hy
pocrisy-of-repatriate-omar-khadr-to.html

Why don't all of you, bleeding heart demagogues go to Afghanistan and spend a day in a Taliban-controlled territory? And let's talk about Khadr when you get back. If you get back.

I don't get the idea of "misconceptions" or assigning this to the mystery channel. What misconceptions? What mystery? There's perfectly rational and plausible explanations for everything that happened to WTC 7 at this point. Heck, you yourself gave an explanation for the explosions this guy claims he heard (power transformers exploding).

I have to go back to the idea that people who argue that 9-11 was some kind of conspiracy are similar to ultra-conservative religious groups when they talk about evolution. Case in point: the crux of your argument here schmawy is that since we don't know second-by-second every single event that occurred inside WTC 7, it's equally plausible that someone blew the building up as it is that it fell naturally from massive structural damage and fires.

That sounds a lot like the kind of argument creationists make against evolution--since we don't have a fossil record of every single genetic mutation ever made since time began, it's plausible that some unseen Creator is behind the gaps in the fossil record. That kind of argument ignores the mountains of evidence besides fossil records that we have for evolution (such as DNA).

Do we know, second by second, what happened in WTC 7? No. But the overwhelming eyewitness accounts as well as the video and photograph data as well as the expert opinions of numerous groups who studied the collapse as well as the lack of evidence to the contrary (no explosive residue) give overwhelming support to the idea that the collapse was natural and inevitable given the circumstances of the day. It's not a 50-50 proposition or even a debatable one. The only real mystery here is why many people continue to believe that its more plausible for a building to be blown up by government agents in some elaborate insurance/global domination scheme than it is for it to collapse after having another building fall on top of it and set it on fire.

Gundam, let me say first that I'm trying like hell to get over my prejudices against this administration and to deal with my paranoid nightmares over the whole situation which continues today, rapidly multiplying the heartbreaking deaths that happened that day. You seem confident and well informed and I have much to gain in challenging you.

That said I want to make sure that you read the post I left on that thread this morning, in case you see it later and are surprised by my tone. It might have been a sarcastic early morning post for me. Not sure now. I think this stuff must frustrate the hell out of you. (below for easy clikin')

http://www.videosift.com/video/New-Testimony-WTC7-Survivor-Barry-Jennings-Account

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
I do remember the Maine. I also remember that it was not used by McKinley as one of the reasons for declaring war on Spain. He did, in fact, try to oppose the war but in the face of overwhelming public and political pressure eventually acquiesced into declaring war for the purposes of freeing Cuba. Now, were there individuals in the government who saw the war as an excuse to grab Spain's other colonies? Absolutely. But that isn't proof that they set up an explosion on the Maine to start the war. You would need eyewitnesses or physical evidence to be able to make a plausible accusation.

That's all I'm asking for schmawy. Proof. Evidence. Something more than conjecture or coincidence. Say, for example, explosive residue found at the WTC site. Or verifiable videos of WTC 7's interior completely undamaged until moments before its collapse. Or corroborative testimony from several reliable witnesses that matches up. Like in the vid we're talking about, what does this guy's buddy have to say about the whole incident? What about the cops and firemen that were supposedly there? Where's their testimony? Surely they all heard these explosions too?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Remember the Maine, my friend.

I do remember the Maine. I also remember that it was not used by McKinley as one of the reasons for declaring war on Spain. He did, in fact, try to oppose the war but in the face of overwhelming public and political pressure eventually acquiesced into declaring war for the purposes of freeing Cuba. Now, were there individuals in the government who saw the war as an excuse to grab Spain's other colonies? Absolutely. But that isn't proof that they set up an explosion on the Maine to start the war. You would need eyewitnesses or physical evidence to be able to make a plausible accusation.

That's all I'm asking for schmawy. Proof. Evidence. Something more than conjecture or coincidence. Say, for example, explosive residue found at the WTC site. Or verifiable videos of WTC 7's interior completely undamaged until moments before its collapse. Or corroborative testimony from several reliable witnesses that matches up. Like in the vid we're talking about, what does this guy's buddy have to say about the whole incident? What about the cops and firemen that were supposedly there? Where's their testimony? Surely they all heard these explosions too?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Remember the Maine, my friend.

From http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ddc/?n=over

Many people mistakenly think that a highway overpass provides safety from a tornado. In reality, an overpass may be one of the worst places to seek shelter from a tornado. Seeking shelter under an overpass puts you at greater risk of being killed or seriously injured by flying debris from the powerful tornadic winds.

The idea that overpasses offer safety probably began in 1991, when a television news crew and some citizens rode out a very weak tornado under an overpass along the Kansas Turnpike. The resulting video continues to be seen by millions, and appears to have fostered the idea that overpasses are preferred sources of shelter, and should be sought out by those in the path of a tornado. In addition, news magazine photographs of people huddled under an overpass with an approaching tornado imply that this is the correct safety procedure. Nothing can be further from the truth!

In the Oklahoma City area in May, 1999, three people were killed and many had serious injuries by a violent tornado while seeking shelter under an overpass. Eyewitness accounts from others in the area indicated that roads were blocked at times as people stopped cars to run up into small crevices under an overpass. Not only is the overpass unsafe as a shelter, blocking roads denies others the chance to get out of the storm's path, and impedes emergency vehicles from their critical duties!

Wind speeds in tornados can be over 200 mph. These destructive winds produce airborne debris that are blown into and channeled under the overpass where people might try to seek shelter. Debris of varying size and types, including dirt, sand and rocks, moving at incredible speeds can easily penetrate clothing and skin causing serious injuries and possibly death. Very fine debris can also be forced into eyes causing injury or loss of sight. A person could even be blown out or carried away from the overpass by the fierce tornado winds. People positioned at the top of the overpass encounter even high wind speeds and more missile-like debris. Wind direction will also shift abruptly as the tornado passes tossing debris from all sides.

In the 1991 Kansas Turnpike video, the tornado was relatively weak when it passed near the overpass. A stronger tornado striking the overpass directly would likely have caused serious injury to those attempting to find shelter there.

The safest course of action when a tornado approaches is to get out of the tornado’s path, or to seek shelter in a sturdy, well-constructed building. Lying flat in a ditch, ravine, or below grade culvert also offers protection from flying tornadic debris. Do ot try to outrun a tornado in a car. Be aware of your surroundings, check weather forecasts often in changing conditions and take personal responsibility for your own safety. Remember: Overpasses offer no protection from a direct hit from a tornado, and should not be used as shelter.

Tornado Safety-Related Internet Links:

National Weather Service Tornado Safety Brochure:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/tornado.shtml




More myths about tornadoes.