underdone
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by underdone
-
-
I had a similar problem a while ago, it turned out to be a bad driver for the sata controller. Make sure you have the latest drivers for your SCSI controller and everything else too.
0 -
There's a section on his forums with a couple different update packs for server 2003.
0 -
-
I've always wondered how a normal user ends up legally using such an expensive OS when XP is cheaper and more than capable of being your main OS.I thing the user above is using 2003 as his workstation machine and needs to play tunes.0 -
It is designed to be a server os, not meant for listening to music.
0 -
Yep, they were probably saying something bad about their rival, Linux.Micro$oft and OpenSource don't go together
. That's why you couldn't find anything.0 -
What exactly did you remove with Nlite?
0 -
Its still there, look under Options. Its all the way at the bottom.
0 -
I agree with that, i was talking more about the supproters outside of the government.3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google smile.gif
I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponsers. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information.
I'm not completely sure of the timeline of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of somekind.When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why?
I agree with that, i was talking more about the supproters outside of the government.3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google smile.gif
I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponsers. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information.
I'm not completely sure of the timeline of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of somekind.When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why?Granted. This is only one piece of evidence however -- one which is relevant and which must be considered because a history has been established. We've been knocking up towers for more than 100 years and most of them have sustained fires, many major fires which have lasted a lot longer than the WTC towers and WTC 7 fires, yet none have collapsed. Of course none have been as badly damaged, though the Empire State tower was hit with a bomber at one time.
Yes, we have been demolishing buildings for a very long time. But like i said before one this size has never been demolished making it very hard to predict what would happen.Neither the height, width nor weight of a building would excuse it from physics. There is a lot of data collected by collages and scientists which clearly demonstrate the collapse speeds were not possible. The other thing to point out here is the concrete: The majority of the concrete was pulverized into fine dust. This simply does not happen, ever, even in normal demolitions, much less to 3 buildings in one day.
I'm pretty sure that if they hijacked a plane and then crashed it that they would be dead.Shortly after that they had a list of 19 hijackers. Where are they now?
I agree that the videos looked pretty sketchy, but both sides of this have some pretty sketchy videos and pictures.bin Laden never claimed responsibility until -- wasn't it years later? Or months? And those tapes and video are very sketchy.
At this website 9/11 Five Years Later there is a rather large list of confirmed terrorists that have been captured. Among other things that a related to the so called "War on Terror". Now, i know this is the the whitehouse's website, but if you google the names of the people mentioned there are many sources for what they speak of.I think that "faulty intel" is far closer to "manufactured intel". Sounds nearly impossible to believe, i know, but if you do the research you'll see what i mean. And if bin Laden can't be connected, and the war was based on that, why are we still over there? As for the terrorists that have been captured, where are they? Who was tried/convicted?
Like i have said before what you remember is dependent on your surroundings. I would like to point to an article by Elizabeth Loftus which talks about memory and the limits of memory. Elizabeth LoftusWatch the William Rodriguez vid (linked to in first post). Dozens of people have testified to this -- well, not just basement, but explosions in general:
I really wish i remembered where this was from, but i distinctly remember a phone call being how the message was finally transmitted.No, but a phone would. In over an hour and a half, not one plane was intercepted.I was unable to find where you said this, and if you did not my apologies.
It has been said that once NORAD knew about the threat that they should've been able to intercept the planes very quickly at speeds abot MACH 1. Previous to 9/11 fighter jets were not allowed to travel at mach speeds over civilian areas which makes their travel time alot greater.
And finally i'm wordering what you're proposing the meaning behind that PDF you posted and the picture you posted at the end are."
edit: I have now discovered its a really bad idea to directly edit posts this large.
0 -
Wow, I sure managed to misype alot in that part.
Not sure what you're getting at. I would think if the official story version were true, we would want to get troops on the ground ASAP. If it were not true, i don't know.I also found another interesting thing about this. The attacks happened on 9/11/01 and on 9/18/16 [06 i assume?] a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress "authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001." However, the actual invasion of Iraq did not occur until 03/20/03 this hardly seems like a rushed war, since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began...First, it was supposed to be 9/18/06 not 9/18/06. My point here was that if this was a war for oil (which has been proposed) shouldn't the attack have started immediately after after approval from congress was achieved?
I also mistyped another part
Its supposed to be 18 months instead of 6since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began...
The problem with even sending inspectors is that the country has to agree to them coming in, and unless this has changed since then, the countries government is informed of when the inspectors will be coming. So, even though WMD's were not found i think its very likely that they were hidden before the inspectors arrived.To me that seems like a contradiction; if the inspectors couldn't find the WMD's, and we invaded anyway, how is that peacful?
Are there and documented false flaf OPs that did get put into action by the US?No, it was not and i hope i stated that earlier because my intension is not to mislead anyone. I cited Northwoods because it's a well documented example of a fals flag OP that made it all the way to the top before being killed.
I think it makes sense to move to a computer model when attempting to simulate a building of that size. There's no way they could physically test a strucure that large effectively. As far as them tweaking the settings a little bit, well there's not much to prove that they did or didn't do so.When they STILL can't get the models to fail, they turn to computer models and, wouldn't you know it, after some "tweaking", the floors failI went to the http://st911.org website you mentioned. I'd like to mention a couple of intresting things i saw.
First was a link to this website. Confessions of a 911 hitman This article is by far one of the most far fetched i've ever seen. There is no prove provided of this person's identity. It also makes refrenses to other conspiracy theories, like the one that Hoover **** was destroyed by demolitions. The second was a the second video they had about half way down.
I'm going to list his top ten here.10 reasons the hijackers are fake by Jim Fetzer10. "Their names do not appear on any passenger manifest." This one i'm not too sure about, before this i have not heard the passenger manifests mentioned. Either way he does not mention a source other than himself.
9. "None of them were subject to any autopsy." This one seems pretty obvious to me, when you crash a plane into a building at speeds in excess of 600 mph there's not going to be much left of the cockpit. Let alone enough of a human body to perform and autopsy.
8. "Five to Seven at least have turned up living in the middle east, and have been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian in the UK." This goes back to how scewed media can be, and since the media is his only source its authenticity its doubtful.
7. "A special FBI agent has explained that the FBI knew the names of all of the hijackers due to a piece of luggage the FBI discovered."
6. "The FBI has not revised its list" He does not make a clear mention of what list he is talking about, only that "maybe the FBI should revise it" Part of his claim is that his bag was left there and he immediately traveled from Oregon to his flight some distance away. He once again does not have a source for knowing that the hijacker made this impossibly fast trip to the airport. And he also refrences his previous point #8 to back this up, so he's building a claim on an unproved claim.
5. "They could not have flown the planes" The hijacker's inability to bring a cessna off the ground does not them unable to fly a commercial airliner. The hardest parts of flying a plane is getting it off the ground and landing it, crashing it into a large building would be comparatively easy. Also, what is to stop them from forcing the pilots of the aircraft to fly it for them.
4. Cell phones could not have been used at the altitudes and speeds these planes were flying. He does refrence an experment with this one. This experiment said that when a plane is above 2000 feet that phone calls are almsot impossible. However these planes did not spend their whole flight above 2000 feet. The WTC height was 1,368ft and the pentagon was definatley not that tall. So it seems to me that yes, phone calls are a definate possibility. I've seen people making calls when planes are taking off and landing, maybe not the best idea to do that but that's not the point
3. "During the trial of the alledged 20th hijackers, a tape was played which included the passengers discussing possibly breaking down the cabin door with the drink cart." He claims that because this was from the cabin recorder that it is impossible to hear any of the passengers. However he fails to account for the airplanes crew.
2. "The last words of the hijackers on the plane was in arabic "Ala Ackbar" (sorry if its spelled wrong) this means "God is Great". The lasts words of a devout muslim is supposed to "There is one God Ala and Muhammed is his prophet."" There is only one problem with this, devout Muslims do not believe in violence. However some terrorists organizations follow a distorted versoin of the Koran. If they have changed parts of it what is to stop them from changing what their last words are supposed to be?
1.Point 1."Mussawi (misspelled?) was not required to turn himself in." Even though a person has no obiligation to turn themselves in they have the right to do so on their own.
Point 2. "An FBI agent who testified to be following Mussawi said that he suspected a upcoming plot and that he had told his superiors that he was supicious of this 70 times" The FBI cannot make moves on an agents suspicions, they have to move on proof. Otherwise we would have alot of time wasted capturing innocent people. He also makes no mention of the FBI agents previous records. Since we do not have a name little can be assumed about what he said.
Point 3. He fails to mention his third point.
These two things alone make me question this whole site.
It's a distinct possibilty, the World Trade Centers were huge buildings with who knows how many important documents inside.The funny thing is, much of the documentation NIST needed to solidify their claims was "missing", such as the impact data, UL steel test data, etc.. They claim some of this was stored in the towers and was destroyed. I'll reluctantly bite, but i won't swallow.
This pictures are incredibly fuzzy, the only i thought i was probably was the first one when it was zoomed in. But even then these pictures had to have been taken at quite a distance especially with the angle they are at.woman in holewoman in hole 2
woman and man in hole
Yeah, those guys offer some pretty insane theories. With the video, its intresting that they show a still picture where the person i pretty clear, but then it shows a video of the same point immediately afterward and i see no evidence of a person standing there.UPDATE: I just found another cam angle in video. Now please understand that i DO NOT agree with some of the idiotic theories this nut attempts to imply -- like a helicopter flying by blew up the towers :/. FF to about the 02:15 mark and you'll see a person standing in the hole: 911 EyeWitness Preview of Hoboken ..0 -
My best guess for SP2B is that it includes a whole bunch of the patches that have been released since then. Especially since SP3 has been pushed back to 2008.
0 -
While it does bear some similiraty, if this was the endgame for President Bush. Shouldn't he be attempting to make new laws that would allow him to go beyond the maximum of 8 years? I also found another intresting thing about this. The attacks happened on 9/11/01 and on 9/18/16 a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress "authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001." However, the actual invasion of Iraq did not occur until 03/20/03 this hardly seems like a rushed war, since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began. It is also worth noting the votes for the joint resolution.Obviously there are similarities to 9/11 in that example, but you'll also find that this example is similar to the Reichstag fire which put Hitler in power, led to a police state, reduction of freedoms and, eventually, the invasion of Poland.The House Of Representatives: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting
The Senate: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting
A year later on 10/16/02 the United States Congess passed the Iraq Resoltion aka "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." This authorized the actual iraq war. Here is a link to the factors cited by the resoltion to justify the actions. Iraq Resoltion. Once again the actual invasion did not begin until 3/20/03.
The House of Representative: 296-133
The Senate: 77-23
Before the invasion began, the United States sent many of our inspectors. Despite the inspectors historical inability to find most weapons. It shows that we did not jump into this war and made every effort to avoid it through peacful action.
Sources
Authorizatoin for use of military force
I will agree that what is on the Operation Northwood papers isa really bad idea. It was never put into action.similar in principle to what would have taken place had Operation Northwoods been approved by Robert McNamara and which would have led to war with Cuba.
According to the final NIST report, gross weight of the 767 that whacked WTC 1 was 283,600 (it was lightly loaded in terms of passengers, luggage and fuel (~10,000 gal. at impact)). I'm not sure about the stats for the WTC 2 plane. Still, this leaves the speed problem. Although i don't have an education nor extensive background in engineering, it appears that most things that are designed with a particular criteria in mind can usually surpass expetations. By how much depends, to a point, on what it is: Aircraft have to be kept light and the line between spec and real-world is probably thin. A building however is another story. I'm not really trying to suggest anything, just bringing up a point. However, i've found very conflicting reports of what aircraft velocity was used for the towers and have seen figures as high as 600 mphI know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed. And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.Just to double check, you're saying that the plane that hit was 283,600lbs or some other weight measurement? I'm going to go with lbs for the rest of this, and assume equal weight on both planes for simplicity.
Since the actual colision speed is disputed i'll go with the slower speed of 400mph. I said before that kinetic energy increases with the square of its speed. SourceDesinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph
The speed i'm using is a little over double the speed of the plane crash it was designed to sustain, with the same weight. So this means that at the given speed it would be hitting with 4 times as much energy. I think that it would be a miracle for any building to survive double its stated max. So, yes it did surpass expectations, at least 4 times that. The engineers behind the design should be congratulated on that alone.This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you must lose four times as much energy to stop.You also mentioned some reports that the buildings could survive a hit from a Boing 707 at 700mph, however since the NIST states no evidence found to support this claim. This information should be left out due to it being unsupported.
I would like to see these pictures, preferably from multiple sources.Nearing the collapse, people are photographed standing in the hole where the plane hit and i can't see any fire worth mentioning behind them, though there is fire above them
I saw this while i was looking through the videos on google. Its intresting to note that while there are hundreds of videos about a conspiracy behind 9/11 i was only able to find 1 or 2 videos on the other side of the story. I came to two possible conclusions from this.Films like TerrorStorm and Loose Change 2 have both allegedly hit the top 100 most watched videos on Google...1. Either there is so little support for their argument that they do not bother to try to argue it.
2. Or there is so much evidence to support their claim that they feel secure enought to not defend their side.
It is also intresting that google hosts these videos which are undoubtably taking large amounts of bandwidth. But, they choose not to mirror the actual sites for videos like "Loose Change."
haha, yeah that's typical of what happens over time....30 years from now when no one will care.
I'm going to assume that you were attributing the "BANG" to an explosive devise of some kind....you hear the sound of a rather significant "BANG" ~9 seconds before the collapse.There are many other things that could've cause the "BANG" people heard. Buldings like that have electrical, gas, water and many other piplines running throughout the building, many of them under pressure. I think that it is attributable to a gas line breaking, leaking gas throughout a room and then being lit by the fire caused by the planes exploding. It has also been proved that the fire traveled down the elevator shafts which go all the way to the bottom of the building. This most likely caused large amounts of structural damage at the base of the building. The "BANG" in this case could be from a large structural member snaping. All of this is my speculation based on what i have seen. I would've cited sources but i was unable to find any beyond the multitude of videos on google.
My post got too long
Sorry, but i was unable read this. Adobe Acrobat was giving me issues.Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. [Rebuilding Americas Defences, Project for the New Anerican Century (PNAC), pg 50-51I'm going to move on to some of the things that were said in you original post.
I would like some clarification on how this is connected to the attacks.FACT: Jeb Bush, George's brother, ran security for the WTC and Dulles
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. SourceFACT: NORAD scrambles ~100 intercepts/yr.. Average response time: 10 min. Yet NO JETS were scrambled until after the Pentagon attack on 9/11.
So, President Bush finisihing up what he was already doing is a bad thing?Bush sat on his behind in a school reading "My Pet Goat. Why? To not scare the children? Protocol called for him to be IMMEDIATELY EVACUATED by the Secret Service. Or was he somehow magically safe behind an invisible deflector shield at a publicly announced photo-op in a public school while "terrorists" were flying around blowing things up?
That is an impressive statistic, but just becaues it has never happened does not mean that it cannot happen.FACT: NO STEEL BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE, or even a combination of structural damage AND fire. Don't believe it? Prove it wrong.
Jet feul was not the only thing burning in the building that day, it was just what started it all. Estimated temperatures are just that, estimated. And even with thousands of gallons of water dispensed they are all very big buildings, it would take alot of water to completely cool them down to air temperature.FACT: Thermal imaging done by NASA several days after the collapses showed hot spots well in excess of 1,300 F. JP-8 jet fuel (nothing more than refined kerosene) burns at a maximum of 1,800 in optimal conditions with a constant supply. Estimated temp of fire inside the towers: 1,300 F. How could temps in excess of 1,300 F be recorded days after the collapse? AFTER thousands of gallons of water has been dispensed? Where did the molten piles of metal found under WTC 1, 2 and 7 come from if the fires were not nearly hot enough to melt steel?
The windsor building and Meridian Plaza may have both been in flames for impressive amounts of time. But they were not hit by airplanes going in excess of 400mph before the fires started. With the aluminum desks in the building, if the building did not collapse its clear that the whole building was not on fire and therefore desks that were not in the hotspots or places with and fire are likeley to survive.FACT: Steel melts at over 2,500 F and loses about 1/2 it's strength at 1,100 F. In the Windsor building fire in Madrid, which burned totally out of control for ~20 hours, the ALUMINUM DESKS did not melt, nor did the building collapse. One Meridian Plaza in Phili was totally consumed by fire for 18 hours. Never collapsed. Many more examples are available of fires in steel buildings that burned much longer and hotter without ever collapsing. Yet 3 buildings, for the first time in history, and on the SAME day, did exactly that.
Like i said before, the jet fuel did not just burn and go away, it lit other things on fire and caused damage while doing so.FACT: The VAST majority A significant portion [18-OCT-06] of the jet fuel burned off OUTSIDE of the buildings in the fireballs we all saw. Experts agree the remaining fuel would've burned off in ~20 min.
It is also know that a building that large has never been demolished (correct form of word demolition?).FACT: Simple (like VERY simple) physics dictate that a building CANNOT FALL AT NEARLY FREE-FALL SPEED on it's own, yet all 3 buildings on 9/11 did exactly that.FACT: Buildings DO NOT simply collapse into their own basements (demolition is something i have some experience with). If there is structural damage, they topple. How do 3 building3, with isolated pockets of fire, (WTC 1, 2 and 7) all collapse symmetrically into their own footprints? I have to wonder if i ever saw such a thing in a cartoon, much less in real-life.
Parts of the fire were incredibly hot, not all of it.FACT: If the fires were SO hot, why is there photographs of people standing in the gaping holes left by the planes after the initial fire subsided? Why was the smoke black, indicating a fire starving for oxygen?Too long once again
Both of these are due the imperfection of intellingence. Expecting them to capture the right people every time is asking too much from an intelligence agency.FACT: Almost every one of the 700+ (over 1,000 according to Cheney) "terrorists" arrested in connection to 9/11 was quietly released.FACT: The DOJ admitted that the identity of several of the "terrorists" is in doubt.
I think that they keyword in this whole thing is "generally reputable" Newspapers and TV news shows are known for their biased reporting.FACT: ~9 of the "terrorists" have been reported by generally reputable resources such as The Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The BBC and The LA Times, to be alive and well in other countries. Atta's father claimed to receive a call from him on Sep. 12, and that is probably the least creditable report. Some of them are working in the airline industry. Of course these reports were ignored by the 9/11 "omission commission".
This goes back to the faulty intelligence. The war was started based on the intelligence at hand. However even though Osama Bin Laden's connections have been disproved at this point. What about all of the other terrorists that have been captured with ties to terrorist organizations?FACT: There is NO MENTION of 9/11 on the FBI web page for Usama bin Laden. When questioned about why, the FBI's chief of publicity said the reason is because the FBI HAS NO HARD EVIDENCE CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11. What is this war based on again?
These eyewitness reports can easily be attributed to memory bias and post traumatic stress disorder.FACT: There was an explosion in the BASEMENT that set off the sprinkler system and killed/burned workers SECONDS BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT. There are dozens of witnesses to support this. Explosions in the lower levels may have been caused by jet fuel which spilled down the freight elevators. [18-OCT-06]Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Well, that's all for now
0 -
Are you sure the drivers for the phone are 64bit? As far as i know its not possible to download the x64 version of WMP10. I spent alot of time trying to find where to download it a long time ago, but all i found was the x86 version.
0 -
I agree with you there, almost every point he makes is backed up by a single garbled transmission, or an interview of one person. If the person in the interview was at the actual event he is in all probability suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. One of the symptoms of this disorder is memory loss. Memory loss can lead to memory bias, which according to wikipedia is "A memory bias is a type of cognitive bias, which may either enhance or impair the recall of memory, or they may alter the content of what we report remembering." This in itself should refute all eye-witness stories because of the effect traumatic events have on the human brain.I will link to that stuff, but i don't give it a very high score on the credibility scale.Wikipedia Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
1) who had anything to gain by this? Who is profiting?2) who had the means and motive?
3) what are false-flag operations and how common are they?
4) is it really true that a LOT of people would have to be involved to pull this off?
5) how many corporations own the vast portion of all forms of main-stream media and who are they?
6) why didn't NORAD intercept any of the planes in over 1 1/2 hours?
7) who coined the name "al-Qadea" and when?
8) is there really a global terrorist network?
9) is there really a link between "al-Qadea" and the Talliban?
10) what's this about "peak oil"?
1. According to wikipedia Al-Quadea who was attributed for the 9/11 attacks is "Al-Qaeda is an armed Sunni Islamist terrorist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate."
a. It sounds to me like Al-Quadea would profit through this by furthering their stated goals.
2. Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests in the past.
3. I've never heard of this before, but from what i have learned. In theory it sounds like a good idea for military perparedness. But clearly more caution needs to be excercised when doing these around unfriendly or even friendly countries.
4. I'm going to decline a definitive answer on this one due to lack of knowledge about the inner workings of our government.
5. I do not know the exact number here, but i would venture that its a large majority. Which makes sense it is not cheap to broadcast media accross an entire nation, let alone the world.
6. This one is really long so i'll just put a link Popular Mechanics - 9/11 Theories
7. I was unable to find enough evidence for a conclusion, but the opinions of when and why vary. Wikipedia says that it was fromed some time in 1990 with no mention of a person who coined this term. Others say that the bush administration came up with this term to label them. I don't like either of these explanations but the latter makes more sense. If the group had been left unlabeled people would be sure of where to direct their anger or whatever they felt from the 9/11 events.
8. No, there is not a global terrorist network. But there are plenty of terrorist cells that have committed crimes around the world.
9. Absolutely, and i quote from wikipedia
10. Peak oil is the peak of the entire planets oil production. I do not doubt that we are very close to this peak. I'm going to assume that you were referring to the so called invasion of Iraq, correct me if i'm wrong. If this was the intent, why did we not invade their close neighbor Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has around 2x more oil than Iraq does.In 1996, Saudi Citizen and former CIA agent Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization.
I dunno. Don't want to kill all the tax payers? smile.gifHe is arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if this is true, the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people. Then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?That wasn't really my point, i was trying to say that if they can kill thousands. What's stopping them from killing a college students family?
That point may be far more relevant than i give it credit for. However, several other websites and photographs and videos have "disappeared" since 9/11. Why, i don't know. Maybe some simply moved on to other things, but some of the content that was supposedly posted on some of these sites was rather damning. It is also interesting that there are no cached copies for some of these sites on Google, MSN, Yahoo or the Internet Archive.It has also been said that the government didn't have enough time to remove Dylan Avery's website. The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to stop this website long before it became popular? I find that highly unlikely.Very good point, i never noticed that none of the sites archived it. I'm not quite sure what would cause them not to archive it.
I know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed. And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.If you read the final NIST report, you'll find that out of ~237 pieces of steel tested, only 6 showed signs of reaching temps above 600 C for 15 min.. The rest were less than 250 C (there is no substantial weakening at this temp).Don't be so sure about that before you study the facts. Most of us get our information from main-stream media and what the government tells us.I agree that the government has and still does not tell us the whole truth. However, you must take into account what would happen if the government told us everything that happened. National panik would undoubtably ensue soon after. So, i think that in this case ignorance is bliss. However there are some cases where i wonder why the information was witheld.
watch what happens in the narrow gap between the two buildings in front of the base of the tower. You'll see white smoke rising just prior to the collapse.I watched this video multiple times and i saw the white smoke. I'm not a structural engineer so i'm not sure of what could cause this to happen. But i do know that this video is extremely poor quality, which makes it likely that the video was edited. And if it wasn't that the brain is making assumptions from the image due to lack of conclusive data. Or, maybe the white smoke was caused by a fire down below being sprayed on by firefighters or from other sources of water or a similar subtance.
And as a final note to atomizer: I may disagree with your point, but i respect your ability to intelligently argue it.
edit: dead link
0 -
The latest service pack is SP1, double check and make sure it isn't already installed. I can't seem to find the download for it on microsofts website.
With the license you cannot transfer it, for a while they had a thing going where you could pay some more money and they'de let you trade it. But that ended a while ago. So, you're stuck with either the 32bit version or buying the 64bit version.
0 -
I read most of this thread, but i don't have enough time to read it all. Also i have extensively studied both sides of this argument, mostly because i enjoy trying to figure out why the other sides feels the way they do about the subject at hand.
A month or so ago i watched the homemade movie "Loose Change" made by Dylan Avery and some of his friends. In this movie he claims that he US government, for whatever reason, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.
He is arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if this is true, the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people. Then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
It has also been said that the government didn't have enough time to remove Dylan Avery's website. The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to stop this website long before it became popular? I find that highly unlikely.
Steel does melt at 1525° C, and even though jet feul burns at only 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C. I cite the following sources for this fact.
National Institue of Standards and Technology Fact Sheet
Now, i'm not going to say that the government did everything perfect here, that's not the case. But, think about this. Shortyly after 9/11 we began a preemptive strike of sorts on Iraq. If we had not done this it can almost be guarunteed that another attack would've occured. And undoubtably the government would be blamed for not noticing the facts. You cannot sit idly by when you have a capable enemy with a deep hate for your whole country.
That's all i have for now, please pardon any mistakes
edit:spelling and grammar
0 -
The update packs shouldn't be used together. 2.12 and 2.12a include all of the same patches, 2.12a just has the newer patches. Use 2.12a by itself and you shouldn't have a problem.
0
. That's why you couldn't find anything.
Help! WMP stutters after nlite
in nLite
Posted
My first thought is a dying hard drive, the increasing errors from that are probably causing the pauses. Run some diagnostic programs on it, including one that reads the SMART output.