At least he spelled "meh" right
But yes, point taken. It took me almost 0.2 seconds to read (and completely disregard) that "meh" and I want that time back, dammit!
Brands bloody Hatch please. I could drive that work of art all day.
Unicorns are fine (if you like that kind of thing). But come on, what kind of a lame-arse poll has no Giant Armoured Squid option? Bah. I wash my hands of this topic. Bah!
Only due to your perception, my learned friend. My personal analysis of the current design practices of Mercedes-Benz lead only to an assessment starting with "meh" and ending with "yawn", as opposed to believing them actively hideous (especially when compared with other models currently on the road). The prototype posted by the OP is, without a doubt, the most reprehensibly ugly thing since this little, um, creature:
I'm telling you it would! This isn't an argument anyway, it's just contradiction.
Racer Y, that was gold man
It's a conspiracy theory worthy of FOX News 
The fact that you won't share your full name makes you look a lot more suspicious
/takes bait
Yes, it most certainly would.
Yes, it most certainly would.
If we all had the same opinion the world would be boring as bat-shit 
The way the current government has the media and several dozen institutes in its pocket, it wouldn't surprise me if it was all bullshit. All science and technicalities aside, there are still a number of things that don't add up. A big bunch of holes and no spackle
x, thanks for not throwing me in the hole with the nutjobs It's always refreshing when people can disagree without going postal.
edit: no need to shout at people, mustang. It was actually quite civil until your post.
x, thanks for not throwing me in the hole with the nutjobs
It's always refreshing when people can disagree without going postal.edit: no need to shout at people, mustang. It was actually quite civil until your post.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Reason : spoke too soon
There were two skyscrapers' worth of debris, of course it was there for two months! It wasn't like they loaded it up on some guy's pickup and carted it straight off. As for what they were looking for, I'm sure noone wanted a hand on a 767 yoke. I was thinking more along the lines of evidence of how the buildings came down so fast. Either they were the worst-designed, most flimsy goddamned buildings ever built or something else happened. You investigate evidence to find the "something else".
To repeat, I don't have a theory, I just want to know why such lengths were taken, at an official level, to hinder a decent investigation into such a horrendous crime. The official explanation said the steel core was melted which caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors which ended in the collapse of both towers. One would be plausible, maybe, but both towers collapsing in the same way within minutes of each other seems a tad outlandish. Or a bit convenient, if you're into conspiracies. Either way, a thorough, scientific investigation of the debris would have told investigators the cause of the collapse and ended all speculation. Why this wasn't done still hasn't been explained to me.
If, and let me stress the "if" here, there was a controlled demolition as many people think, it would make perfect sense to do it that way as perfectly collapsed building debris would pulverise much of the evidence from the aircraft (the black boxes were never recovered from the WTC debris). IF it was an inside job (if!) then it was done very neatly indeed.
As an aside, I wonder why these psycho pilots didn't make a beeline for the Whitehouse if they were wanting to injure America so badly...they seem to have found the Pentagon ok - it's about the same height as the WH and it's not that far away.
Burning buildings seldom, if ever, simply collapse into themselves in that manner. Exploding tanks may have accounted for some more damage, but exploding diesel tanks wouldn't have brought down an entire building. Again, it was either a badly-designed building or something else happened. And, yet again, an investigation of the debris would have confirmed that something else.
That's quite true, but in today's charged environment it's a hastily-used term trotted out to instantly discredit anything that runs contrary to mainstream opinion. The way you would say "conspiracy theory" may be very different to the way a White House shill would use it. The White House has had plenty of its own conspiracy theories anyway: the Afghans did it; the Iraqis did it; some new evil called "Islamofascism" is threatening to take over the word; Saddam was going to use nukes/chemicals/bioweapons on the US; we have to get "them" over "there" before "they" come and get us; Iran now wants to nuke the US so we have to get them next ... and I could go on. The chief conspiracy theorists in the last 6 years have been White House employees and their on-leash TV commentators/parrots.
I think the only people who are currently terrorising the world with the aid of conspiracy theories live in Washington DC - but that's another discussion entirely.
That nice Popular Mechanics article has been debunked by competent engineers and scientists around the world ever since its release. It seems the only place it's still used as "evidence" is in the US.
While that video does show debris falling all over the place (not unlike the news footage that dominated TV in the months after), it's still not an adequate explanation of how the towers collapsed so neatly.
Anyway, like I said, I don't have alternate theories. I look at stuff logically and if there are things that don't quite fit they stick out at me like a sore thumb. Also, given the Bush team's reluctance to even begin the 9/11 commission, and given how they've used those catastrophic events to further their plans (and lied about the real reasons for them from day one), I really don't blame people for thinking 9/11 was very conveniently timed. Before, Bush was tanking in the polls and couldn't get anything done (like he tried anyway). After, his ratings were in the 90s and he could do no wrong. He kicked off two wars (without which there's no way he would've been re-elected in '04 - Americans always seem to re-elect their goons-in-chief when there's a war on), stripped Americans of their rights and freedoms in the name of security, did whatever he wanted and continues to do so. I'm not a nutjob theorist but I can understand why some people are
And Rick Astley can burn. Bloody Islamofascist.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
I don't have any theories as to who did or didn't carry out 9/11, but I do notice holes in the story. One of the biggest is the fact that the debris from the WTC was carted away and recycled or destroyed, instead of having the FBI crawl all over it with microscopes looking for anything that could point to the culprits. WTC was a crime scene the likes of which the US has never seen but the evidence - all million tons or so of it - was taken away and not examined. Noone has been explain that to my satisfaction.
That those airliners could have caused the towers to collapse is a big sticking point. The official explanation points to the steel core of the towers being melted by burning jet fuel. The vast difference between the burning temperature of jet fuel (methanol iirc) and the melting point of reinforced steel leaves a big hole in the story. As does the fact that the WTC towers were designed precisely to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 jetliners (which were the largest in operation at the time of the towers' construction). But even if the initial impact or subsequent fires managed to weaken the steel cores of the towers, why didn't their structures fail just at the impact/fire points and collapse from there, instead of collapsing as neatly into their own footprints as any controlled demolition that any of us have seen on TV (think back to the last Vegas casino demolition video you've seen). Again, I have no alternate theory for who made this happen, but the official explanation leaves too many holes to ignore.
WTC 7, which briefly contained a 9/11 command centre, also collapsed neatly into its own footprint, despite having only suffered minor superficial damage. No satisfactory official explanation has been put forward to explain this.
A thorough investigation of the evidence from all of those sites would have revealed the exact cause of the collapses, leaving no room for speculations or assumptions from either side of the debate. Any couch potato who watches CSI or any cop show knows that you keep everything from a crime scene and you look at it as many times as you need to, no matter how insignificant it may appear. But the WTC evidence is gone. If I came home to find my house trashed and my wife dead and then proceeded to clean up the house and get rid of the body before calling the police, I would expect to receive some very tough questioning ...
Leaving aside a few other things (such as the precision flying of large airliners by some guys who apparently had only ever flown light aircraft, the failure to respond by NORAD as soon as the airliners veered dramatically off course, early media reports and eyewitness testimonies which were "buried" and not heard again after the 11th, apparent discrepancies in the Pennsylvannia account and the completely inexplicable 2-year stonewalling of the 9/11 commission by the Bush team - why act like you have something to hide if you don't?), I think the families of those killed are owed a lot more than their government has given them. To leave 9/11 half-investigated in this manner disrespects them a lot more than someone demanding a bit more vigilance and an honest investigation. You can throw around terms like "conspiracy theory" and blast guys who ask hard questions and may even have imaginative theories, but it doesn't remove the fact that the official 9/11 story does not make sense when you approach it logically.
Bush has used 9/11 to launch a war in Afghanistan (dubious in legality in a best-case scenario) and one in Iraq (unconnected to 9/11 in any way, shape, or form, utterly reprehensible and a war crime under the terms of Nuremberg and every international treaty & law as well as the revered US Consitution itself). He and his party members continue to use 9/11 to instill fear in the hearts of Americans in order to justify to the continuance and escalation of the war in Iraq and will now do the same to commence war with Iran.
Almost 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Bush has sacrificed almost 4000 more Americans in Iraq, fighting an enemy which did not attack America. Around a million Iraqis have been killed, with millions more displaced and seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. Bush lied to 300 million Americans - and six billion of the rest of us - to start his war and he continues to repeat the same lies to keep it going and constantly invents new lies to expand his war to other countries.
Regardless of who actually carried out the 2001 attacks or why they did it, Bush has cynically used it to further his agenda or, at least, the agendas of the people who control him. To me, that's a lot more disrespectful to the memory of the victims than someone demanding a real investigation.
That those airliners could have caused the towers to collapse is a big sticking point. The official explanation points to the steel core of the towers being melted by burning jet fuel. The vast difference between the burning temperature of jet fuel (methanol iirc) and the melting point of reinforced steel leaves a big hole in the story. As does the fact that the WTC towers were designed precisely to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 jetliners (which were the largest in operation at the time of the towers' construction). But even if the initial impact or subsequent fires managed to weaken the steel cores of the towers, why didn't their structures fail just at the impact/fire points and collapse from there, instead of collapsing as neatly into their own footprints as any controlled demolition that any of us have seen on TV (think back to the last Vegas casino demolition video you've seen). Again, I have no alternate theory for who made this happen, but the official explanation leaves too many holes to ignore.
WTC 7, which briefly contained a 9/11 command centre, also collapsed neatly into its own footprint, despite having only suffered minor superficial damage. No satisfactory official explanation has been put forward to explain this.
A thorough investigation of the evidence from all of those sites would have revealed the exact cause of the collapses, leaving no room for speculations or assumptions from either side of the debate. Any couch potato who watches CSI or any cop show knows that you keep everything from a crime scene and you look at it as many times as you need to, no matter how insignificant it may appear. But the WTC evidence is gone. If I came home to find my house trashed and my wife dead and then proceeded to clean up the house and get rid of the body before calling the police, I would expect to receive some very tough questioning ...
Leaving aside a few other things (such as the precision flying of large airliners by some guys who apparently had only ever flown light aircraft, the failure to respond by NORAD as soon as the airliners veered dramatically off course, early media reports and eyewitness testimonies which were "buried" and not heard again after the 11th, apparent discrepancies in the Pennsylvannia account and the completely inexplicable 2-year stonewalling of the 9/11 commission by the Bush team - why act like you have something to hide if you don't?), I think the families of those killed are owed a lot more than their government has given them. To leave 9/11 half-investigated in this manner disrespects them a lot more than someone demanding a bit more vigilance and an honest investigation. You can throw around terms like "conspiracy theory" and blast guys who ask hard questions and may even have imaginative theories, but it doesn't remove the fact that the official 9/11 story does not make sense when you approach it logically.
Bush has used 9/11 to launch a war in Afghanistan (dubious in legality in a best-case scenario) and one in Iraq (unconnected to 9/11 in any way, shape, or form, utterly reprehensible and a war crime under the terms of Nuremberg and every international treaty & law as well as the revered US Consitution itself). He and his party members continue to use 9/11 to instill fear in the hearts of Americans in order to justify to the continuance and escalation of the war in Iraq and will now do the same to commence war with Iran.
Almost 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Bush has sacrificed almost 4000 more Americans in Iraq, fighting an enemy which did not attack America. Around a million Iraqis have been killed, with millions more displaced and seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. Bush lied to 300 million Americans - and six billion of the rest of us - to start his war and he continues to repeat the same lies to keep it going and constantly invents new lies to expand his war to other countries.
Regardless of who actually carried out the 2001 attacks or why they did it, Bush has cynically used it to further his agenda or, at least, the agendas of the people who control him. To me, that's a lot more disrespectful to the memory of the victims than someone demanding a real investigation.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/l ... t/formula_one/6991147.stm
Don't know if this provides any more info than the other links ...
Anyway, at least McLaren will probably still finish ahead of Renault
There's another kind of mafia?
Don't know if this provides any more info than the other links ...
Anyway, at least McLaren will probably still finish ahead of Renault
There's another kind of mafia?
Thank heaven it's not a production model. That thing is fuh-HUGLY.
You'll be well-prepared when the Redcoats come back then
I got a gas bill yesterday. Yay. Plus I keep getting "vote for me" mail because there's a federal election imminent and there are at least 3 goddam catalogues in my letterbox when I get home each night. Then there are the free local magazines that seem to come twice a day despite the fact that noone reads them. I know junk mail's a fact of life, but when the letterbox is full the bastards start shoving them between the fence pailings and leaving them on top of my hedge - I mean, come on, if you're full at dinner do you start shoving food up your arse? Give me a ****ing break!
Anyway, there are no pics because all that crap gets immediately transferred to the recycle bin, where it makes a nice soft landing for all my empty bottles.
Anyway, there are no pics because all that crap gets immediately transferred to the recycle bin, where it makes a nice soft landing for all my empty bottles.
Cheers! I'd take credit for making it, but lies make baby Jesus cry ...
sam93 (Level 10 Mage) casts "Resurrect" ...
... for some reason
... for some reason
I think LFSTweak can be used to modify performance figures but the cars can't be modified graphically at this point (I'm not sure but I don't think LFSTweak can be used online either). Check the Unofficial Addons subforum for Tweak stuff (I don't specifically know what to look for because I don't use it) ...
You can drive a manual, that's the difference. The cop that drove his car couldn't drive a manual and it's very likely he did ream the clutch instead of simply stalling it. Anyway, if cops are going to be moving other people's cars, that in itself seems like a damn good reason to teach cops to drive manual cars. Most of the world can drive both automatic and "stick" ...
I don't see how legitimately refusing to answer an irrelevant question is picking a fight either. It's still the land of the free, isn't it? Or is that just a line in a song? If that transcript is accurate, it sounds like the guy was unfailingly polite in the face of pure, unreasonable antagonism. Which, I grant you, may well have been because his camera was on
But perhaps we'll never know why he was driving around with a camera on in the first place. Maybe he turns it on whenever he sees a checkpoint coming up, precisely because he's had this kind of problem before and wants to have his own records of proceedings. Maybe he's just a vigilant (paranoid) kid who's never had a problem and just got lucky with this tape
Mmm, caramelised banana flambe *drool*
You sure know your desserts, Zac
You sure know your desserts, Zac
*reads the above in the voice of Cleetus from teh Simpsons, laughs heartily*
Duh-huuuurgh...mah mama's mah sister! :zombie:
What kind of frickin' halfwit COP can't drive a manual? They give 'em guns but no driving lessons? Dang
Nice police you got there, Missouri :up: Have they always acted like the Gestapo or is that a recent Homeland Security-inspired thing?
Go Hamster, drive it like you stole it
My challenge was for ol' Irish noob up there^, sounds like he's driven a few Holdens in his time I'm well aware of how Commies handle like boats. The brand new ones are pretty comfy, of a decent build quality and not bad for the Adelaide/Melbourne trip I have to do a few times a year but through corners? Nup. They still suck at those. Commies and Falcons are built to be easy as piss to drive, haul dad's boat (and his fat arse) without struggling and drag off hatchbacks I hear you about Skylines too - I was spewing when they banned them from the touring car comp (which started the process that led to V8 Supercabs). As if the powers that be were going to put up with some smartarse Japanese 4WD turbo thing wailing on the V8s though
I'm well aware of how Commies handle like boats. The brand new ones are pretty comfy, of a decent build quality and not bad for the Adelaide/Melbourne trip I have to do a few times a year but through corners? Nup. They still suck at those. Commies and Falcons are built to be easy as piss to drive, haul dad's boat (and his fat arse) without struggling and drag off hatchbacks I hear you about Skylines too - I was spewing when they banned them from the touring car comp (which started the process that led to V8 Supercabs). As if the powers that be were going to put up with some smartarse Japanese 4WD turbo thing wailing on the V8s though Yeah, Valiant was its own brand down here. Maybe they thought Aussies wouldn't like saying "Plymouth" or wouldn't understand the historical reference, I dunno...
Anyway, in Spielberg's first feature, "Duel", the hero's gorgeous orange Plymouth Valiant (a 1970 model I think) defeats a frickin psychopathic 18-wheeler! Had some big nuts, the old Val
"Duel" Valiant:
I reckon I'll stick with the Oz Val Charger thanks
Anyway, in Spielberg's first feature, "Duel", the hero's gorgeous orange Plymouth Valiant (a 1970 model I think) defeats a frickin psychopathic 18-wheeler! Had some big nuts, the old Val
"Duel" Valiant:
I reckon I'll stick with the Oz Val Charger thanks
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG