Hi Newt. Pricewarfare is warfare. I call for the immediate intervention between the decades old war between Wallmart and Target.

Oh and without looking anything up, name one piece of information leaked, other than the helicopter gunship footage, that constitutes calling for his death. Face it, America is just embarrassed.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab.


But that misses the point: it's fun to imagine a crazy, wacky conspiracy with layer upon layer of complexity. Because really, it's not about the "truth"; it's about imagining the world really is like a crazy political/spy thriller. Then you get to imagine all sorts of crazy things:

- missiles being shot into the Pentagon
- remote controlled jetliners hitting building
- secret explosives planted to bring down skyscrapers

etc etc.

Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab. In the case of 9/11 it could be millions of people - journalists, politicians, scientists, firefighters, demolitions companies, the military, the police, the CIA and FBI, TV news reporters, office workers, cleaning staff, maintenance crews, NIST, eyewitnesses, plane pilots, camera crews, sound and video editors, the President and his staff, ambulance workers, the Pentagon staff, air-traffic control, explosives suppliers, airport ground crews... There'd almost be more people on the "inside" of the conspiracy than the outside.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

>> ^blankfist:

I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.


Setting aside for a moment what the constitution says about the powers of the Supreme Court, does this ruling of the Supreme Court of Blankfist mean that any soldier has the right to march over to the enemy camp, and tell them the location and battle plan of the US Armed Forces, and be immune from prosecution?

How about fraud? Does this absolute ruling of yours mean that any attempt to control lying is also a violation of the 1st amendment?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.
At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?


What I meant was that people ambushing Obama about Manning should be hammering him about Manning's right to trial, about which there cannot and should not be any debate, especially from Obama.

In the larger sense, yes I think Manning did a service to his country, and I'm hoping that out of the associated fracas we see some movement to reform the rules around secrecy and National Security.

I don't have much hope of seeing that with politics being what they are these days, but it'd at least plant a seed in people's minds so that if/when sanity returns, people can rally around an effort to pare back secrecy laws.

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.

At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?

His intention was good but it's rather unprofessional to leave in midst of an interview. Just sayin'.

It's sorta like capturing a window spider and releasing it outside in midst of a job interview or saying hello to his friend while he's at the principal's office. Do remember that he just came out of a police station fighting extradition facing a rape charge in Sweden. (which is another debating case of immaturity of him and people he mingles with)

It just goes to show his attitude towards all this media attention, that he's not taking things very seriously, not much different from a love-starved kid getting attention by being naughty.

What he's doing with wikileaks has made headlines, fighting against the tyrannies of corporate controlled and concentration of power. That's good. But he's also a man that does not care much for conventional rules, and he'd rather play this role of vigilante and in fact loving every minute of it. He's just as immature and selfish as any one of those crooks he is ought to expose them.

He likes the fact that he can play outside the boundaries, that he is above the law. In fact that's what his work is about, by means of backhand deals and illegal information leaks. But he's doing these bad things to the bad guys, which is the major difference and why some people view him as a hero. So his existence is in itself a constant clash of irony, a people's hero out to fight against world's problems, by practicing the same techniques the baddies are using, and enjoying his role in it.

I view Assange and Wikileaks as probably somewhat utopian in their desires.

They want politics without any bullshit involved. Yes, it's an EXTREMELY high goal to aim for, but is it wrong? No absolutely not.
What is wrong is assuming that governments have ANY right to keep secrets from the people who elected them, sometimes with the stupid shitty excuse that people wouldn't want to know what needs to be done.

Oh... and about the possible Corporate leak on the way. Is it wrong because they are privately owned? Only if the information leaked could be used for industrial espionage. If it's a leak concerning the way corporations act(ed) then fuck them all. Corporations should be the first ones to be called on their bullshit.

But hey... why would one bunch of bullshiters stop another bunch of bullshiters? Only if it serves their mutual interest.

the scooter story has been the bigest crap story i have ever heard. the media has managed to basicly headline a Non sequitur. people hear bush coverd up somthing that lead us to into war. oh ya its because of some cia miscomunication. thats bull shit its like the media wants to equate bush lying or overreacting about weapons of mas destruction (witch in reality caused the shityist us war is 30 years) too a much less of a crime of leaking of information. leak or no leak. bush cronies got what they wanted.no shit there were cover ups?

the us meidia is trying to act like it gives a shit about what the bushys do. ya right.
the media should be reporting more than just this one angle. ok how about bush and a large portion of American are racist pigs. that should get front page.
its ashame that this is as far as it goes too the people of the united states taking responsibility for there governments actions. the media figures it good because the scooter case is a metaphor for the people saying bush is wrong. but the media wants to civilize the story in this clean by the book lawfull way. when in reality these charges associated with the war should be much more horrendous.

There is someting so dsturbing about the WTC7 collapse. If 9/11 was planned, why, would they make it so blatantly obvious that WTC7 was a contolled demolition. Nothing collapses like it did by itself, its just seems ridiculosly obvious that it was imploded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao
Did they just think nobody was going to film it? Or if they did, What the hell? I know it's terrible to think that a goverment would do/allow this to happen to its own people. For gods sake, the building didnt even crumble, it just fell like every single screw was removed for the bottom up. Every single video/article rebutting the 9/11 conspiracy theories dosen't explain this very plausibly at all. there is just as ren said, so much WTF? stuff going on with the whole situation. I'll admit, it seems incredibly unlikley that a conspiracy of this scale could be pulled off with out anything comming to light or anybody involved speaking out or information leaking. the whole JFK thing (which i'm not very familiar with) is an example where a handfull of people could organize and execute, but this seems way to elaborate, far too many people would need to be involved. Yet, something still seems so uncanny about the explanation for the events that took place and the relative lack of investigation into them. I don't know what the hell is going on.