09-13-2006, 05:07 AM | #61 | |
The Greater
|
Quote:
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -Cliff Bleszinski |
|
09-13-2006, 08:27 AM | #62 | |||||
Life and times of...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
|
Quote:
And garlic. So, I didn't remember a food and cooking thread? Oh right... Quote:
Pentti Linkola. That's one fine man. Last edited by UPtimist; 09-13-2006 at 08:32 AM. |
|||||
09-13-2006, 08:31 AM | #63 | |
Homer of Kittens
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, Bay Area
Posts: 4,374
|
Quote:
ABC hired as co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel. Let's look at wikipedia to see who this Thomas H. Kean chap is. Wikipedia: Thomas Howard Kean (born April 21, 1935) is an American Republican Party politician, who served as the 48th Governor of New Jersey, from 1982 to 1990. He is perhaps best known globally, however, for his appointment, in 2002, as Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, widely known as the 9/11 Commission, which was responsible for investigating the causes of the September 11, 2001 attacks and providing recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks. He was appointed to this post by U.S. President George W. Bush . From New York Times: “The Path to 9/11” had been written and produced by a “friend of mine out in California” named Cyrus. “From what I’ve been told,” Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on rushlimbaugh.com, “the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration.” So let's recount. Written by a friend of Limbaugh's and produced by a republican, Bush assigned, chairman. Yes it is NOT republican advertisement. Read this letter from Bill Clinton's Lawyer to ABC. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_ab c_obtained Scholastic distanced itself away from the path to 911 after it learned of its in -accuracies. Want more? American Airlines threatens suit against ABC because of the Path to 911 http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2...er-path-to-911
__________________
-------------------------------------------------- Games I am playing: Jeanne D'Ark (PSP) Firefox rules |
|
09-13-2006, 09:56 AM | #64 | |
Party On Dudes
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Sussex, England
Posts: 1,290
|
Quote:
and uptimist, what you said about nukes was fucking stupid. |
|
09-13-2006, 03:42 PM | #65 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course they are. It's horrible PR. There were specific details that were changed, but the main idea of the film segments were correct. Warnings did come up on the computers when they checked in, but the operating procedure at the time was to make sure they got on the planes with their checked luggage. The reason being that no sane person would blow up the plane with them inside. The terrorists set off the metal detector alarms, yet were quickly wanded and waived through. I'm not blaming the Clinton administration or the airlines. I'm not looking for anyone to blame. It is important that we evaluate our past mistakes so that we can learn how to best protect ourselves in the future. The best way to do this is through honest debate. Unfortunately, the political left and right in this country have made this virtually impossible. |
||||
09-13-2006, 04:03 PM | #66 |
is not wierd
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
|
Man I love how this turned into a bunch of separate overdone arguments instead of an in memoriam.
|
09-13-2006, 04:25 PM | #67 | |||||
Homer of Kittens
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, Bay Area
Posts: 4,374
|
Quote:
What I saw was fictitious facts put there to promote the president before the November election. It is shameful of Disney to go that low. Quote:
Interesting how a documentary based on the commisions report got this wrong. Quote:
Quote:
The warning depicted in the movie actually popped up when Mr. Atta went to board a plane from Maine to Boston, not in Boston, and the airline wasn't American. Pre-9/11, warnings issued were to ensure that bags of last-minute passengers traveled with them. Quote:
__________________
-------------------------------------------------- Games I am playing: Jeanne D'Ark (PSP) Firefox rules |
|||||
09-14-2006, 06:36 AM | #68 | |
Life and times of...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
|
Quote:
Just like global warming. Many experts say that if nothing is done within about ten years, it will be too late. And if it's between people (but not all of course) dying and the Earth saved, and the people saved but the Earth dying, I would choose the first alternative. If nothing else, when the Earth dies so will the population. All population, not just people. |
|
09-14-2006, 07:00 AM | #69 | |
The Greater
|
Quote:
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -Cliff Bleszinski |
|
09-14-2006, 08:57 AM | #70 |
Freeware Co-ordinator
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
|
Re : The Twin Towers must have been blown up from inside.
It would be more accurate to say that no PROPERLY BUILT tall tower would just fall down like that. Study of the structure of the original building shows there were flaws in its construction. These flaws were such that damage to a few key structural elements would cause the floors above the damage to collapse very much in the way they eventually did. The downward pressure from those floors collapsing would be more than enough to bring down the floors below the initial damage. So explosives inside would not have been needed to cause the collapse as it happened. They would have moved the process along but they weren't an invevitable requirement. Re : Does it matter who says somthing? Well, yes it does and for precisely the reason that this subject was raised. For an independent review it is not enough for an individual to know they are acting independently. They have to be SEEN to be independent. If there personal position is such that the public could perceive them to have a bias then any results they produce will be viewed with suspicion. It's a key part one of the things I do for a living (auditing). We have to give up auditing jobs where we could be seen as having a conflict of interest (audit client that's a large part of our turnover for example) even when we know we would act impartially.
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43 Cold Topic A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree |
09-14-2006, 09:31 AM | #71 |
The Greater
|
How do you know that the evil organization that blew up the towers from inside didn't fabricate these so-called "structural designs" that showed the building being poorly built?
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -Cliff Bleszinski |
09-14-2006, 11:53 AM | #72 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
I want to save this thread from endless political debates and conspiracy theories
I don't know if any of you have been following the saga of this picture (it's a very striking picture to me - the seeming serenity of the foreground with the chaos in the rear): I've only been reading about it in Slate.com so that's the only reference I have. It was taken on 9/11 and the man who took it (Thomas Hoepker) never published it, deeming it too controversial. The people in the photo 'appear' relaxed and look like they are just having a chat (and the photographer never interviewed his subjects). So Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a column (which you can't read unless you subscribe to Times Select) which was discussed here in Slate. The next day, David Plotz vehemtly disagreed with Frank Rich's assessment and asked for the people in the photo to get in contact with them to hear it from them as to what they were doing. So two of the people (on the far right) have written in and said what they were doing and basically said. 'Shame on you, Frank Rich!' Yes, I have moved on but certainly not everyone has and I highly, highly doubt that many on that day would have 'moved on' so quickly. It would have been especially rare, I would think, for a New Yorker. I don't know what Frank Rich was thinking. I thought it was an interesting saga and proof that it helps to ask your photo subjects about themselves and how a moment in time in one photo can be look one way but be something very different. |
09-14-2006, 12:01 PM | #73 | |
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
09-14-2006, 12:24 PM | #74 | |
Freeware Co-ordinator
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
|
Quote:
Basically your question is unanswerable not because you're right but because there will always be another "How do you know" beyond any answer. I could say I'd seen the plans beforehand. You'd say "How do you know the evil organisation didn't replace the plans well in advance?" I could say I'd toured the building and noticed the problems myself. You'd say "How do you know the tour wasn't run by the evil organisation with mock-up faults to lend credence to their story?" I could say I was responsible for the shoddy design. You'd say "You're part of the evil organisation". In all honesty, the moment someone even uses the phrase "evil organisation" in this context it's clear they're not open to any sort or rational argument. You're arguing based on a proof that has no substance other than "What if" speculation. I refuse to waste my time arguing with someone who bases their opinion on lack of facts.
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43 Cold Topic A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree |
|
09-14-2006, 12:26 PM | #75 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
Quote:
|
|
09-14-2006, 02:59 PM | #76 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
Sarcasm aside Sak, what makes you think it's photoshopped? It looked legitimate enough to me. *shrugs*
|
09-14-2006, 03:40 PM | #77 |
Unreliable Narrator
|
It must be the lens flare.
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
09-15-2006, 05:31 AM | #78 |
Life and times of...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
|
It looks quite fake to me too... And I certainly am no expert
|
09-15-2006, 08:45 AM | #79 |
Feind der Anonymitaet!
|
So how about this? I study media computers sciences, which includes lectures on image manipulation - and can see no immediate evidence it is photoshopped. For one, the light source is in the right place - that's first and best indication of merged images, if shadows don't fall correctly. Secondly, fine details like the shrubbery near the left pine overlap the background without artifacts, which indicates that's where it belongs in its original photo (assuming there'd be different ones). Thirdly, the perspective is right. Fourthly, the buildings left of the smoke - the direction the smoke is being blown into - are veiled by smaller smoke particles. Details, details, details. It's no hard evidence against it being 'photoshopped' - a good photo manipulator will know enough about reality to be consistant in these things - but to say the image is 'clearly photoshopped'... is just wrong, unless someone else who knows more about image manipulation can correct me on something glaring I missed, or someone who knows about the physics of those smoke/dust particles and turbulence (etc).
It's a good photo, which might be throwing people off. In fact, it's throwing me off. We're all so used to everything being digital and 'corrected' after taking that it's hard to consider a photo that is, simply, good - with its white and blackpoints properly set in, well, the white and the black, rather than in greys (Topic: Histograms) - but that's what makes a good photographer... someone who knows what lens and filters to put onto their camera before taking a picture, who can judge the lighting, and have the picture appear in brilliance anyway. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying: "It clearly isn't manipulated." - but I'm irked by people saying "It's clearly photoshopped". Since no one else has spoken up, I figured I had to. Edit - added a word I'd missed.
__________________
"Me pee stick bigger you pee stick." (credit to, but not attributed to, Jeysie) "Don't be careful, be immortal." Bratâ„¢, certified as by Trep Winner of the Second-Best-Dressed and Non-Specific awards in the Unbiased Impostor Awardsâ„¢, amongst many others. Non-Conformist to Non-Conformismâ„¢ Internet Explodifierâ„¢ - the best weapon of mass destruction!!!11one Trademark Overuserâ„¢ Last edited by pinkgothic; 09-15-2006 at 09:01 AM. |
09-15-2006, 10:55 AM | #80 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
Thanks Pink.
I probably shouldn't have been sarcastic with Sak but I was sort of feeling like an ass myself thinking something was obvious about the picture that I was missing. If something is terribly photoshopped, I can see it but I have no clue what to look for in well done photoshopping. I really appreciate the detailed explanation and links. It would be interesting to hear why others think it is photoshopped. It would be a learning experience to understand it better. If interested, here's the viewpoint of the man who took the photograph (also from Slate.com). |