Aa
New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week
"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" is getting public attention and casting doubt on the scientific validity of the U.S. government's investigation into the WTC tragedy.
PBS is the first major network to air the program.
Just days away from the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy and months away from the U.S. presidential election, a game-changing 9/11 documentary is ranking number three among "most watched" documentaries on PBS and number one among "most shared."
Available for free online August 18th - September 4th, the documentary could have a significant effect on public opinion. [Update: PBS has extended viewing indefinitely.]
Both the Republicans and Democrats, as equally staunch defenders of the official story, stand to be affected if the public's suspicion of government corruption grows deeper.
An earlier report on Digital Journal found that the claims made in the documentary can be verified by reading the government reports themselves. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds. Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory. The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure. It appears that the investigators may have intentionally produced reports that the scientific community would reject.
According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the producers of the documentary, have been trying to educate the public for a number of years. The PBS broadcast of their work represents a major step forward for them.
While most people have probably heard that a scientific investigation has been conducted and that the building collapses were explained, few have probably looked at the NIST reports themselves. Links to the NIST reports can be found in the above mentioned Digital Journal article. NIST provides no data whatsoever on the actual collapse sequence itself.
The new attention to the issue could be significant for the U.S. presidential election. Prior to the publication of the reports in 2005 and 2008, almost half the population was suspicious of the official story of 9/11, according to several opinion polls. Since then the 9/11 tragedy has been used to direct the policies that have led to the enormous increases in military spending and to a loss of civil liberties in the U.S. and worldwide.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051#ixzz25qFo0vu0
PBS is the first major network to air the program.
Just days away from the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy and months away from the U.S. presidential election, a game-changing 9/11 documentary is ranking number three among "most watched" documentaries on PBS and number one among "most shared."
Available for free online August 18th - September 4th, the documentary could have a significant effect on public opinion. [Update: PBS has extended viewing indefinitely.]
Both the Republicans and Democrats, as equally staunch defenders of the official story, stand to be affected if the public's suspicion of government corruption grows deeper.
An earlier report on Digital Journal found that the claims made in the documentary can be verified by reading the government reports themselves. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds. Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory. The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure. It appears that the investigators may have intentionally produced reports that the scientific community would reject.
According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the producers of the documentary, have been trying to educate the public for a number of years. The PBS broadcast of their work represents a major step forward for them.
While most people have probably heard that a scientific investigation has been conducted and that the building collapses were explained, few have probably looked at the NIST reports themselves. Links to the NIST reports can be found in the above mentioned Digital Journal article. NIST provides no data whatsoever on the actual collapse sequence itself.
The new attention to the issue could be significant for the U.S. presidential election. Prior to the publication of the reports in 2005 and 2008, almost half the population was suspicious of the official story of 9/11, according to several opinion polls. Since then the 9/11 tragedy has been used to direct the policies that have led to the enormous increases in military spending and to a loss of civil liberties in the U.S. and worldwide.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051#ixzz25qFo0vu0
I'm not sure, but this is the LONGEST thread I've seen in the CE Forum. I think we need to keep it going, and see how long we can get it.
That said, let's try and keep it on-topic sometimes though.
Okay... here goes:
I think anyone that thinks 9/11 was an inside job is nuts. So... you guys are plain and simple... nuts.
(that's right, I said it. you're all nuts!!!)
That said, let's try and keep it on-topic sometimes though.
Okay... here goes:
I think anyone that thinks 9/11 was an inside job is nuts. So... you guys are plain and simple... nuts.
(that's right, I said it. you're all nuts!!!)
Whoo Hoo 108!!!!! Damn!
107
LOL, you know what, this conversation had 105 comments! Wow! Awesome! Good conversation!
Right, or we could also talk about soft furry pu$$y cats :)
OR... you could just write it like this:
P-U-S-S-Y-CATS
There are ways around the automatic censors MedHelp has in place!
P-U-S-S-Y-CATS
There are ways around the automatic censors MedHelp has in place!
desrt: That article is junk, I already explained about the PDB. It was not repeated warnings. It was an over view of intelligence.
I have no opinion or theories on Sept. 11 other than it was a terrible waste of human life and it changed the world forever.
If you're looking for conspiracies, the simplest explanation is most likely the truest. Allowing 19 men carrying box cutters to walk onto airplanes is much simpler than planted charges and elaborate conspiracies.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/cia-documents-confirm-that-bush-administration-ignored-repeated-warnings-about-osama-bin-laden-attack-plans?news=844661
If you're looking for conspiracies, the simplest explanation is most likely the truest. Allowing 19 men carrying box cutters to walk onto airplanes is much simpler than planted charges and elaborate conspiracies.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/cia-documents-confirm-that-bush-administration-ignored-repeated-warnings-about-osama-bin-laden-attack-plans?news=844661
ha, I think that is the fist time I wrote a word that got censored. Let me rephrase things . . . "kitty cats".
Well, I'm so dull . . . it would probably add some excitement to my life to think someone was peaking in on me.
I really don't like the so-called security measures because they are more show than substance. They slow things down, are a big hassle and intelligent people who wanted to get away with something, still could.
I don't mind the metal detector but enough is enough.
However, it is the loss of our privacy and rights that are truly disturbing. See my other post.
I don't mind the metal detector but enough is enough.
However, it is the loss of our privacy and rights that are truly disturbing. See my other post.
I cannot imagine people are actually complaining about that? I traveled to Israel and back, there is no way I wouldn't want to be scrutinized. It is a safety measure. We can say it is a loss of privacy but is anyone really going to complain? That seems very strange to me.
It is the legal suspension of rights under the Patriot Act that is seriously inconvenient.
It is the legal suspension of rights under the Patriot Act that is seriously inconvenient.
To be really honest, my husband travels a good deal. He gets on a plane just about every single week either domestically or internationally. Those security measures give me peace of mind. Because of his job, he actually is often pulled for searches over what other's endure. I have had it happen one time when traveling with him. (these are the type that happen at the check in counter in which you go to another room, have all of your luggage opened and searched as well as your person.
I didn't feel it was an indignitiy I was forced to suffer in all honesty. What I think about it---- I hope that anyone with the idea of doing something to cause harm to myself and others traveling is searched the same way.
Never took any of it personally and am darn glad that when my husband travels, someone is checking who he is traveling with. Maybe that creates my benevolence. I've also traveled internationally. There are parts of the world in which you'd think the United States were a bunch of ***** cats when it comes to security.
I didn't feel it was an indignitiy I was forced to suffer in all honesty. What I think about it---- I hope that anyone with the idea of doing something to cause harm to myself and others traveling is searched the same way.
Never took any of it personally and am darn glad that when my husband travels, someone is checking who he is traveling with. Maybe that creates my benevolence. I've also traveled internationally. There are parts of the world in which you'd think the United States were a bunch of ***** cats when it comes to security.
Yes, in some states, there are laws regarding the use of cell phones/texting, while driving, as well there should be, but you still have the right to use one if you choose.
May you always remain so benevolent, no matter what indignities you're forced to suffer.
May you always remain so benevolent, no matter what indignities you're forced to suffer.
But there are laws regarding cell phones. They can't talk while driving in some states. Everything has limits that are meant to protect us ... be it an irresponsible driver who is texting and talking to distraction while driving to a terrorist who wants to kill us with a nail file (or whatever).
"If Southwest came out tomorrow and said no carryon's are they taking away a freedom?"
No, because that's a company setting their own policy. The other issues, with security, are government mandated (Homeland Security) and are a whole different issue.
If one chooses to use a cell phone, can pay for it, and the air time, one has the "right" to do so.
No, because that's a company setting their own policy. The other issues, with security, are government mandated (Homeland Security) and are a whole different issue.
If one chooses to use a cell phone, can pay for it, and the air time, one has the "right" to do so.
While it may not be a fundamental right to drive I doubt anyone would disagree that there is a great deal of freedom associated with driving. If you forbid someone to drive then you infringe on that person's freedom - notwithstanding the fact that there may not be a fundamental right to drive. But, it gets complex when you really start to THINK about it so I'll stop now.
Use a land line, take a bus, ride a bike.
No Mike I understand what you think. You get to drive correct? Is it a right that every person gets to drive? No it's not. Is it a right that you can use a cell phone? No.
Stop trying to muddle things up and look at them with clear eyes. If Southwest came out tomorrow and said no carryon's are they taking away a freedom? No they are not.
No Mike I understand what you think. You get to drive correct? Is it a right that every person gets to drive? No it's not. Is it a right that you can use a cell phone? No.
Stop trying to muddle things up and look at them with clear eyes. If Southwest came out tomorrow and said no carryon's are they taking away a freedom? No they are not.
I know what your saying, and the fact of the matter is, there is no longer a right to privacy. It sounds good, but just no longer exists. Its a trade off of sorts for the feeling of security and technology. We all bought into it hook line and sinker tho. How many people do not have computers, telephones. Hail, even my car computer spies on me. It logs if I had my seatbelt on, how fast I am going. All the police have to do to find if I am at fault is hook me up to a computer!
What I find worrisome is that every person can be tracked through online forums, FB and cellphones. Even while driving it is possible to be tracked through cameras and whatnot.
I don't mind the invasion of privacy if it is for the safety of the greater public, it is the fact that once it is legal to do this, how are people who are not a threat to the public protected from potential abuses of power?
I don't mind the invasion of privacy if it is for the safety of the greater public, it is the fact that once it is legal to do this, how are people who are not a threat to the public protected from potential abuses of power?
They've always had regulations of some sort regarding what you can take on a plane. Have we ever really been 'free' to bring whatever we want? They've screened luggage and people long before 9/11.
So, they screen now for even more. Big deal. I never considered that a loss of my freedom. I considered it keeping me safe.
By the way, I might have been the old white woman Brice saw being searched. I was okay with it.
So, they screen now for even more. Big deal. I never considered that a loss of my freedom. I considered it keeping me safe.
By the way, I might have been the old white woman Brice saw being searched. I was okay with it.
Vance just doesn't understand it. He thinks freedom = rights in the boring old rights vs privileges thing. But, privileges can create freedom and that's apparently too abstract for him to process.
BTW -- I don't mind not being able to take a bottle of water through security, and some of the other minor things, even though they are losses of freedom; I do mind the searches because they leave one feeling totally violated, for reason, other than someone got to go on a power trip.
If you have an expatitation of privacy every where you go then stay home. Now the TSA is way out of line in some of the things they do and that is being reviewed, but you have not lost a freedom granted to you by the constitution. Those are freedoms, if you want to say you lost privlidges then so be it and I will agree with you.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
