>> ^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*

>> ^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?

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..

And the flimsy evidence that Usama Bin Laden and 19 Hijackers did it managed to convince you?
I don't know about you but I didn't see any evidence that proved he/they did anything. Heck even the FBI doesn't think there's enough evidence to connect him to it.


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.

What's wrong with being a Ron Paul supporter. Seems to me if everyone had listened to him in the 80's we wouldn't be in the shit right now.

I know bugger all about his policies really, but I just found it funny that in this video the guy connected the two... and I thought 'hey, yeah, he is an avid supporter of him too'. Nothing against RP, don't know enough to have anything against him.

And UFO's are real. The designation is a fairly normal term. It means unidentified flying object. Not believing in them is like not believing the sun will rise.

Oh, don't get all semantic. You know exactly what I'm talking about. The belief that there is some enourmous coverup that intelligent aliens have landed/crashed here, somehow met ONLY the US government and they are using their tech for weapons research.

I have no doubt there is other life out there, what I don't believe is that they have come here, only been seen by yokels etc. and left it at that. There are SO many things you can see in the sky that can be misconstrued as an alien spacecraft. Until I see incontrivutable proof of, or meet an alien (or ghost for that matter, same deal there) I won't believe in them... there's no proof at ALL that they exist.

Oh come on, I'm not trying to drag his name into the mud, what shits me beyond belief is biased and emotive reporting.

Rather than reporting the facts, and as many of them as there are to hand (what was actually going on that caused them to be pulled out of the train etc.), they paint the victim as a saint.

I'm in NO WAY trying to say he deserved to be shot, not at all, or make him out to be a bad person. What I'm saying is that I hate any reporting of a story like this that skews itself so far one way or the other.

If you're going to tell us that he has a 4 year old to a girlfriend and was 'trying really hard' of late to be a better person, how about you also enlighten us as to what he was doing before hand that made him have to become a better person. OR... just don't tell us any of that superfluous information at all, and maybe tell us MORE about what happened during the incident rather than all this extraneous bullshit.

You are firmly of one belief without knowing all the facts. YES I can't see any other reality other than this guy was VERY, VERY in the wrong. But in what way, we don't yet know... (yes, he shot him, but was it some serious anger management, a mistake, having a real issue with fear, what?) and if he somehow actually avoids any trial then that is seriously fucked up and wrong on so many levels.

So, I'm not trying to make the victim out to be a bad guy, but painting inaccurate pictures of either party doesn't help matters at all.

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
Also, spoco, you got some nerve trying to drag the dead guys name into the mud. It doesn't matter if he was a saint or an ex-con. Police Officers should do their jobs and treat people properly based on the situation.

It doesn't make it right to shoot someone (on purpose or accidentally) or even attempt to use lethal force (point a gun at suspect) in this situation. The only possible justification that will come out of this was Mehserle thought he patted down a weapon.

It is still manslaughter for such gross negligence in this video. The dead man did have a child and the coverup and lack of response by the BART police is relevant.

Oh, and to the cops that wrote the policemag article...

The BART police did not remove the mortally wounded man immediately, they did not administer first aid. He did not die at the hospital. I understand needed to get control of the situation (they now created), but SOMEONE could have gotten him immediate help instead of waiting so long.

Cops don't understand, people can understand possibly an accidental discharge. They can no longer tolerate the bullshit coverups and cops who never see justice. The BART spokesman lies to the public. The police never come forward with details. The only evidence had to be released by cameras that happened to have not been confiscated. The videos contradict the official story.

Why won't this guy be treated like any citizen? Why was he not arrested? Why will he not be criminally charged?

A few comments. He did not resign to help out BART. He resigned to avoid EVER speaking to a review board or ever testifying to what happened except at a civil hearing. I doubt he will ever be charged criminally as it could have been on the job accident.

He is a scumball for quitting just to cover up any evidence of his wrongdoing. I want to know if Mehserle was ever issued a taser. Doubtful considering the number of months in use at BART, I wonder if he recently did training for Tasers though. Yes, Taser Intl is evil for promoting usage by cops for compliance not life threatening situations.

Also, spoco, you got some nerve trying to drag the dead guys name into the mud. It doesn't matter if he was a saint or an ex-con. Police Officers should do their jobs and treat people properly based on the situation.

It doesn't make it right to shoot someone (on purpose or accidentally) or even attempt to use lethal force (point a gun at suspect) in this situation. The only possible justification that will come out of this was Mehserle thought he patted down a weapon.

It is still manslaughter for such gross negligence in this video. The dead man did have a child and the coverup and lack of response by the BART police is relevant.

>> ^Trancecoach:
It appears that the officer has been forced to resign from the force. The police decided that the shooting was too much to bear -- that the shooting was indefensible -- so they're not going to protect him.
If you ask me, it appears that the camera phones really worked in this case.


to dcmisha's response -> thank you for an experienced analysis


I feel sorry for the officer. It seems that he accidentally took a life, a situation that may haunt him for the rest of his days. Actually I hope it does. Not for the reason that many people would. I don't want him punished in that way, just that it would show sincerity of character.

This doesn't excuse him from accepting accountability and responsibility for his actions. I am a disturbed by the report that they tried to gather all the video capture devices from the crowd. Perhaps I am jaded, but that smacks of the beginnings of a coverup. I would be curious what the polices official story would have been if the video hadn't surfaced for several weeks. Again perhaps I am jaded, but I expect I know what it would be.

A very bad day for many people. I'm glad it was recorded to ensure it was brought to light.

BART spokesman Jim Allison has said the officer's gun went off while police were trying to restrain Grant and that Grant was not cuffed. The unidentified officer is on paid leave as BART investigates the shooting.

Why are cops allowed to lie to the public. If you lied to a cop you could be charged. These are sworn public servants. I think the spokesman and anyone giving false testimony should be thrown in jail. Is Jim Allison aware it should be a crime to give false reports to the public.

Clearly this will be a coverup when they "investigate".

If a cop could mistake the operation of a pistol with a taser, they shouldn't be a cop let only using deadly force.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
So , just because people in the media was told these things "off the record" they keep it to themselves??


yeah i wanted to say that but i thought maybe there is a very good reason for the "off the record" thing... even if there's side effects.

but yeah i agree, participating in a coverup is kinda... unjournalistic, right? right?

what i am most concerned about is the allegations of coverup, and the fact that the story ends with "the police refused to comment"

err... you shot my dog, any comment?
"don't tell anyone"
err... i got it on camera
"don't show anyone"
err... i pay your fucking wages.

The fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could cook the books enough to get those HUGE bonuses says they knew all along there would be a crash. They were getting what they could out of it first.

Why aren't they up for criminal charges? Hmmm?

http://www.videosift.com/video/In-Their-Own-Words-Dems-Scam-Coverup-Caused-Crisis

>> ^quantumushroom:
It is not unreasonable to assume one-half of Congress has only contempt for the US military and will do anything to make it look awful, if only to please their warped constituents.


that's right, if that military woman wasn't wearing her uniform like that she wouldn't have been raped. she was asking for it, that little slut. it's their fault for having a vagina that so many reported rape, as is the fault of the countless others that *didn't* report it.

warped, indeed.

those allegations have never been proven...it was however proven that she was getting drunk with the boys, just like all DUI people she only had a couple of drinks, someone must have drugged her...there has been absolutely 0 proof that more than one person had sex with her and his claim is that it was consensual...she was placed in a "standard housing unit" for less than 24 hrs. with an HR lady while they sorted it out...I guess they're pretty busy with thousands of contractors dying in Iraq and all...I just wonder how GI Jane goes on having been taken as a POW, repeatedly raped and held for months? I guess you can actually go on and work when there's no billion dollar corporation to sue...this isn't about justice, this is about hitting the lotto...KBR has a receipt for the kit, it was mishandled by the Army doctor and the Government offices...why not sue them? I guess it wouldn't make such good news and pump up the price...there is no coverup, the Army in the middle of a war lost a valuable piece of evidence and that's a shame...take it up with the appropriate people for justice and not money and I'll start believing...

This is what's typical of these far-right extremist "nutjobs":

1.) They classify anyone that questions the "far-rightist's" "official" stories as a "far-leftists"...

1a.) ...not taking into account that people from all walks of life and of varying political position (fl--left--ml--middle--mr--right--fr) with any common sense will not blindly and automatically believe all the official stories when coverups and secrecy is a prime factor involved with governments for several centuries.

2.) They can't seem to keep their body language stabilized, and usually have a smile on their face when they're ranting. I'm not a body linguist specialist, but I would like to see one analyze these random flailing movements that people like this man (David Brooks) or Rush Limbaugh exhibit.

3.) While some make several logical and valid points in their arguments, they will rarely if ever agree to anything thier "perceived-opponent" has to say.

4.) Many will attack the personal character of the individual they are ranting about. When confronted with these individuals on-air you rarely see the subject attack back in this manner. (bloggers in this case- which cannot immediately respond)

5.) Most of all they will compare freewill-speaking bloggers with a vile and evil character that has hurt many people in an attempt to villify their subject(s). In this case: Bloggers compared to Bin Laden.

6.) What they may not realize is that any sane individual can see through this type of pathetic and desperate attack. Unfortunately many people are not entirely sane in this world (possibly why a variety of people visit psychologists and take prescribed mind/mood altering drugs.) This would be their prime target audience.

No problem, RadHazG. Media is part of what I do and to show it's flawed I've got to know where they got it wrong, this just happens to be one of those subjects the media is badly failing on. The warrantless wiretaps was another. If it's a FISA debate it's domestic, period. The only function of the FISA court was to deal with those foreign calls when they come home to a US person who has a right to expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Foriegn wiretaps never have needed a warrant. Program was so illegal that even Ashcroft threatened to resign if they didn't fix it. Never had a thing to do with stopping or needing approval to listen to foreigners or terrorists, that was just talking points to confuse the issue.

J-Rova might have a point though. Might not as well. In most cases the President has a right to pardon and such but what about if he pardons to protect someone who commits a crime in their own administration? Even Nixon didn't pardon Halderman, Colson and Liddy. When done to coverup or to stop an investigation into crimes in your own administration, then we just might be crossing a line into obstruction of justice.

I've got to agree about past abuse as well though. Clinton pardoned his brother and that crossed a big line too, some others were questionable as well. The nation NEEDS to start to understand that the law is as much precedent as what's printed on the books. Let someone bend the rules and defend it once and now it's easier for the other side to bend it too, for their reasons rather than yours. We're quickly becoming a nation not of laws but of partisan favoritism and it'll ruin us. If we don't figure out who we really want to be as a nation I'm afraid we're at about the end of the road. Both sides need to stop defending their abuses, it's bad precedent and precedent isn't partisan. One abuse sure as hell will lead to the next.