more debunking and less name calling please <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDvNS9iMjzA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDvNS9iMjzA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXTlaqXsm4k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXTlaqXsm4k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> please discredit this clip of engineers and architects by calling the poster names and associating him with moon landing or CT of your choice. that way you can get the last word in without providing anything tangible
Let's talk about the text of the bill... I believe it is this one... S. 3480 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480: I haven't read this whole bill yet, but after skimming it for 20 minutes I honestly have to say I'm not as tinfoil about this as some seem to be... While I absolutely distrust many things our government does, we must also realize that we have silently entered a new military era... just as we did when the Wright brothers first flew... it was inevitable that aircraft would be used in warfare... much the same way that massive internet-based denial of service attacks on our critical infrastructure like power plants, water treatment systems, financial brokers, or other critical internet-connected infrastructure are inevitable, and have already happened to smaller corporate and military targets. 9/11 leveraged our commercial airliners... their targets? Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse. The next 9/11 could easily be weeks-long crippling electronic attacks on our infrastructure. We have enemies... the obvious ones like Iran, N Korea and their ilk... then our bigger "friends" like Russia who would like nothing more than to extract revenge for their Cold-War defeat and national humiliation. Do you remember Medvedev visiting silicon valley earlier this year and chatting it up with our big boys about how he can build his own tech haven? http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-...ssian-president-dmitry-medvedev-cisco-systems Shortly thereafter, a network of Russian spies was outted... we had been tracking them for years... I personally think this timing was no small coincidence. We're reminding them that we know they still have plans for our demise. You do realize that Russia recently started testing our air defenses again over the north pole... every so often their bombers approach, just as in the Cold War and we escort them away. This is done to measure our timing and look for potential weaknesses... it's also a mind game. Just as we need SAM sites and jet fighters to guard our skies, we need a way to protect ourselves from wide-scale internet aggression... *Today* you can hire a large network (called a bot-net) of hacked computers and take down pretty much anything with a pipe to the internet for a few thousand bucks... those attacks are so distributed, it's like death by a billion simultaneous papercuts from invisible hands... none of the paper cuts are that large, but stopping each one of them is financially impossible... we don't have that much time or manpower. Imagine what that would do to your trading and order execution, let alone the US economy, if we got simultaneous attacks on many of our internet-connected brokers of choice? So why can't we employ the same systems that guard our skies in the internet? Because you don't get permission from the government and file a flight plan when you hop on the 'net to read the news, day trade, or order a shiny toy from Amazon. Firewalls? We have nothing that big, or that insightful that can discriminate good from bad for the volume of traffic I'm talking about... The best we can do is find where the bulk of the attacks are coming from and disconnect it... sorry folks, that's reality... it sucks. Do I think we're going to turn off *all* the internet? Highly unlikely... but we can go to our international internet borders (likely inside our borders as well) and shut down the large hostile flows with the correct government authority. That may means completely disconnecting all traffic from some foreign countries... Do we have to trust our government? Yes, the same way we have to trust our government to guard our borders from attack. Is this allowed under the Constitution? I would argue yes... but I'm not a lawyer... just a ex-military guy who was helped people like Sprint and Verizon build their internet infrastructure for the last 15 years. Screaming conspiracy is a natural and understandable reaction given some of the trash our government has pulled... that doesn't change the reality that we do have bigger enemies than ourselves, and we need the power to fight them. I would also say I completely identify with the pervasive mistrust of our bozos in Congress who are constantly inventing new ways to mire our country in debt and handcuff our liberties... however, on this issue I take sides with the government.
ROTFLMAO!!!! Debunking of what? Your pointy headed delusions? Why in the world would anyone dignify your absurd BS with rational discussion? That would be like debunking what "John Lennon" in an insane asylum claims is the hidden meaning of Revolution 9. I do have two serious questions for you though. Where are you from? And why has the Bush-hating media totally dropped the ball on what would be the story of the century?
Using your demented and retarded logic: There have been no terrorist attacks while Obama has been president. So why the fuck are morally corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and Godless soulless mofos like you complaining? The answer is very simple. All of a sudden a black man is president and morally corrupt shit like you come out of the woodwork complaining about your "free-dhums". No one can ever make Taliban like you happy. The solution is simply to laugh you off as the nonsensical irrelevant pestilence you all are. You want to know why America is failing? it's because of unproductive morbidly obese shit like you now think you matter when in reality you do not.
You might want to tell that to BO. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/obama-software-flaws-let-christmas-bomber-get-through/ Obama: "Software Flaws Let Christmas Bomber Get Through" * January 7, 2010 Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...t-christmas-bomber-get-through/#ixzz0y19kY84Y
i just provided the links. The scientists, physics,engineers, firefighters, victims families. are the ones providing the evidence. As far as bush is concerned I haven't mention him in any shape or form except for providing you with a link to judicial watch. You are the one obsessed with him , you mention him in every post you make. The media does report they just ignore <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oO2yT0uBQbM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oO2yT0uBQbM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Try to stay focused on the topic at hand instead of going off on moon landings and pop culture. 100 eyewitnesses report seeing molten metal, photographic and video evidence of molten metal. NIST admitting to free fall speed through 40 tons of structural steal which provided no resistance according to NIST peer review paper of thermite found all over in the dust of the WTC Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant. A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process. Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it. Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER. So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. " BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year. IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out. Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU). We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
LOLOL!!!! The Bush-hating lamestream media and the NIST have rejected 911 conspiracy theories. You're a kook for believing this crap to begin with, especially after it's been debunked. But you're an even bigger kook to think that this big of a story would be ignored. Do you also "think" the moon landings were staged? Do you also "think" Elvis is alive? P.S. You never said where you're from.
Lets review the debate so far my evidence of demolition molten metal that can't be explained by fires or jetfuel thermite found in wtc dust in a peer review report that is accepted by the scientific community NIST admitting acceleration through 40 tons of structural steel (steel should provide resistance to a falling object) documentation by engineers , physicists, architects evidence you have provided that the buildings didn't fall by demolition The moon landing John Lenin Elivis and a bush hating media media Who sounds like the conspiracy nut P.S. if you would acutally read the NIST report they said that their proposed scenario only has a "very low probability" but I'm sure you read it and if you would do some research on your own you would find that even the Republicans on the 9/11 commission called it a whitewash http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1785 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup The following are a few examples: Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a ânational scandalâ, stated in a 2003 PBS interview, âIâm saying thatâs deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing⦠series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked⦠the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administrationâs policy was, and its priority was, weâre gonna take Saddam Hussein out.â Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said, âOne of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it upâ. In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported, âSome staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagonâs initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.â 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story. Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted, âWe were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,â Roemer told CNN. âWe were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.â
pretty typical of a conspiracy nut to replace scientific evidence with blah blah blah and then insert your own reality.
There is no debate you headcase. I already told you that I refuse to dignify your pointy headed conspiracy theory. If you want to get your mind right, there's a website called Google which will help you research this. That is, if you're still capable of rational thought (which seems doubtful from your posts). You still haven't explained why the rabidly anti-Bush media dropped the ball on what would be the story of the century. Oh yeah... and what about all the Bush-hating democraps who would sell their souls for that kind of an opportunity to nail him? They let that slip through their fingers? ROFL!!!!! P.S. You still haven't said where you're from, if you also "think" the moon landings were faked and if you also "think" Elvis is still alive.