You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2006, 05:07 AM   #61
The Greater
 
Giligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 6,541
Send a message via AIM to Giligan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom
Oh for god's sake, don't turn this topic into another stupid conspiracy theory discussion. There was no conspiracy. A plane hit the building, the building collapsed, and every sane demolition EXPERT (which probably excludes you) will be able to explain in great detail how and why it happened like it did.
Hey, if you want to turn a blind eye to the facts, be my guest.
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.
-Cliff Bleszinski
Giligan is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:27 AM   #62
Life and times of...
 
UPtimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens



Saks


Act up again and I'll send a truckload of onions to your front door, bitch.
Who wouldn't want a truckload of free onions? You could sell all you don't want, and you always, always need onions. Most foods need them, they aren't nothing without onions.

And garlic.

So, I didn't remember a food and cooking thread? Oh right...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giligan
Well, we are the only people to ever use a nuclear or atomic weapon against an enemy in the history of mankind, don't forget.
Well, there would be good sides to a nice nuclear war too. Would help with the overpopulation. They should just remember to use neutron bombs, so that they don't harm the enviroment and nature too much...

Pentti Linkola. That's one fine man.

Last edited by UPtimist; 09-13-2006 at 08:32 AM.
UPtimist is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 08:31 AM   #63
Homer of Kittens
 
SoccerDude28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, Bay Area
Posts: 4,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal
You must have not watched the second half of the "docudrama" (aired on Monday). The warnings in August 2001 were indeed mentioned. The Bush administration was hardly let off the hook. If anything, the show was anti-bureaucratic B.S. and red tape than anything else.
You want facts?

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
SoccerDude28 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:56 AM   #64
Party On Dudes
 
SCRUGAtes13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Sussex, England
Posts: 1,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giligan
Hey, if you want to turn a blind eye to the facts, be my guest.
no-one can deny that the towers looked very much like there was explosives in them, i would call it a very sane theory. there has been many sane experts that have spoken out about it, so phantom i'm afraid whether a theory or not, it's still a very plausible one.

and uptimist, what you said about nukes was fucking stupid.
__________________
(zombies) ATE MY NEIGHBORS!

www.myspace.com/rabhiphop
SCRUGAtes13 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 03:42 PM   #65
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoccerDude28
You want facts?

ABC hired as co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel.
You need to learn how to objectively evaluate someone's argument, while keeping their perspective in mind as a frame of reference for context. Judge what the person says, not who says it. Entirely negating anything someone says who is not in your political party of preference stifles political debate in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoccerDude28
Clinton is right that certain specific details were changed. However, I have seen in other documentaries that the Clinton administration did not give the order to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance. In all fairness, there was a good chance of collateral damage. If you combine this with the fact that he was facing impeachment, it would have been political suicide. But then again, I saw these documentaries on the ultra conservative PBS, so they have no merit, right

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoccerDude28
Scholastic distanced itself away from the path to 911 after it learned of its in -accuracies.
They distanced themselves after they faced heavy political pressure and lawsuits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoccerDude28
Want more?
American Airlines threatens suit against ABC because of the Path to 911
http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2...er-path-to-911
[/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.
Durandal is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 04:03 PM   #66
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

Man I love how this turned into a bunch of separate overdone arguments instead of an in memoriam.
Spiwak is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 04:25 PM   #67
Homer of Kittens
 
SoccerDude28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, Bay Area
Posts: 4,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal
You need to learn how to objectively evaluate someone's argument, while keeping their perspective in mind as a frame of reference for context. Judge what the person says, not who says it. Entirely negating anything someone says who is not in your political party of preference stifles political debate in this country.
So you mean to tell me with an honest face, that the fact that the co-executive producer is a Bush assignee, the writer is Rush Limbaugh's friend, and that only the republicans on the commisions committee gave input does not suggest any form of biasedness in the documentarie's point of view?
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:
Originally Posted by Durandal
Clinton is right that certain specific details were changed. However, I have seen in other documentaries that the Clinton administration did not give the order to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance. In all fairness, there was a good chance of collateral damage. If you combine this with the fact that he was facing impeachment, it would have been political suicide. But then again, I saw these documentaries on the ultra conservative PBS, so they have no merit, right
What you saw on PBS is irrelevent in this discussion because they don't have proof to back it up. What we have in front of us is the commision's report, and even that, ABC took the liberty of changing it to support their political agenda. If you read the link I gave you "First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509)."
Interesting how a documentary based on the commisions report got this wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal
They distanced themselves after they faced heavy political pressure and lawsuits.
And because it is factually inaccurate to teach it in high schools.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal
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.
From the article:
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:
Originally Posted by Durandal
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.
There is no honesty in an administration whose vice president says one moment that there is connection between Saddam and al-qaeda, and in the debate against Edwards blatently says that he never mentioned that. Or of a vice president whose company gets magically all the contracts in Iraq. Or whose company has a subsidiary in the carrabean that performed trade with Iran (including nuclear centrifuges). Or of a president who has lied to the American people about WMD's to wage his own personal, fictitious war that has cost more American soldier lives than 9/11 and has cost more than 100 thousand Iraqi casualties. Or are these American soldiers less important than the victims of september 11th?
__________________
--------------------------------------------------
Games I am playing: Jeanne D'Ark (PSP)

Firefox rules
SoccerDude28 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 06:36 AM   #68
Life and times of...
 
UPtimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRUGAtes13
and uptimist, what you said about nukes was fucking stupid.
Yet, there is truth to it. If something doesn't happen soon, very soon, things will be quite desperate. Of course I wouldn't actually want that, but if something doesn't happen to the population, the Earth will be doomed in a shorter time you can imagine. Even though I wouldn't actually do that, I think what Pentti Linkola suggests about for example aid to development countries should be stopped except for contraceptives, tree planting and guarding the trees so that they won't be cut right after isn't too bad an idea. However, I am not saying I want that to be done, I'm just saying that I understand that point of view, as I do the other.

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.
UPtimist is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 07:00 AM   #69
The Greater
 
Giligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 6,541
Send a message via AIM to Giligan
Default

Quote:
"In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggresive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerors and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.
-William L. Shirer
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.
-Cliff Bleszinski
Giligan is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 08:57 AM   #70
Freeware Co-ordinator
 
stepurhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
Default

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
stepurhan is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:31 AM   #71
The Greater
 
Giligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 6,541
Send a message via AIM to Giligan
Default

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
Giligan is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 11:53 AM   #72
Super Moderator
 
Melanie68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
Default

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.
Melanie68 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:01 PM   #73
Banned User
 
SakSquash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie68
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.
Wow. Any ass monkey could tell you that photo is fake. It's so photoshopped.
SakSquash is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:24 PM   #74
Freeware Co-ordinator
 
stepurhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giligan
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?
How do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar being fed sensory data by a bunch of mad scientists? For that matter, since the existence of such a thing as a brain is based on past sensory data, how do you know any of the universe exists at all in the way you think you perceive it.

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
stepurhan is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:26 PM   #75
Super Moderator
 
Melanie68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SakSquash
Wow. Any ass monkey could tell you that photo is fake. It's so photoshopped.
I didn't realize I was dealing with an expert. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.
Melanie68 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 02:59 PM   #76
Super Moderator
 
Melanie68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
Default

Sarcasm aside Sak, what makes you think it's photoshopped? It looked legitimate enough to me. *shrugs*
Melanie68 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 03:40 PM   #77
Unreliable Narrator
 
Squinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Le Canada
Posts: 9,873
Send a message via AIM to Squinky Send a message via MSN to Squinky
Default

It must be the lens flare.
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right".
Squinky is offline  
Old 09-15-2006, 05:31 AM   #78
Life and times of...
 
UPtimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
Default

It looks quite fake to me too... And I certainly am no expert
UPtimist is offline  
Old 09-15-2006, 08:45 AM   #79
Feind der Anonymitaet!
 
pinkgothic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,898
Send a message via ICQ to pinkgothic Send a message via AIM to pinkgothic Send a message via Yahoo to pinkgothic
Default

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.
pinkgothic is offline  
Old 09-15-2006, 10:55 AM   #80
Super Moderator
 
Melanie68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
Default

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).
Melanie68 is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.