vinniram Wrote:It would seem that anyone who questions USA's position in the world is considered "weird" by most others, well that's what I've realized here in Australia, anyway.

Nah.

That's your ego talking.

You can criticize the US all you want.

Hell, I'll even join in, on occasion.

Your ego can't accept that it just crossed a serious rational line.

You are praising China as a new hope.

That's not "weird." It's ignorant... Assuming you are serious.

Dislike the US all you want. But don't give credit where it is not deserved.

(This isn't related but). Have any of you guys heard about the Internet "Kill-switch" that was recently passed in the U.S. It hasn't been really talked about in North-America.(How do I know this? A teacher at my school was talking about this, so I researched it up and it turned out to be true)

kazelee Wrote:

vinniram Wrote:It would seem that anyone who questions USA's position in the world is considered "weird" by most others, well that's what I've realized here in Australia, anyway.

Nah.

That's your ego talking.

You can criticize the US all you want.

Hell, I'll even join in, on occasion.

Your ego can't accept that it just crossed a serious rational line.

You are praising China as a new hope.

That's not "weird." It's ignorant... Assuming you are serious.

Dislike the US all you want. But don't give credit where it is not deserved.

China deserves the credit IMO. What do you mean 'ego'?

Quote:What do you mean 'ego'?

You have stretched the implied meaning behind the criticism of your post - meaning, you are not speaking from a position of ration but ego. You are not the only one, of course.

vinniram Wrote:China deserves the credit IMO.

Because it hasn't started a war recently?

Considering that the government are civil servants working for citizens and paid by tax dollars isn't it reasonable to expect that all information regarding their work/policies/dealings/etc be publicly available? Would you accept your dentist, hairdresser or mechanic whose services you pay for acting secretively and being cagey with the truth or would you stop hiring them...?
Regarding diplomacy, why (other than to enact policies that will be harmful to other parts of the world)is there even any need to keep negotiations between any two countries secret from the rest of the world?

[ファブリス]

This is pretty sad, another person on TV explicitly suggesting that Assange be assassinated.

My take on this is that people are being unnecessarily patriotic.

I've often reflected how funny that is, that if I was born in India, I may have a completely different set of beliefs, I may spend my days begging on the street. If I was born in Russia, again things would be completely different. And what if I had been born in China, Tibet... or maybe somewhere in a AIDS-ridden village of Africa? ...

So when I say "I am a Belgian" or "I am a proud American". What the **** does that mean about who that I is ? I am just telling the world: this is where I was born, and these are the beliefs I was raised with.

So many people who see themselves as clear headed, intellectuals, educated, capable of making their own mind, and of rational judgment... make me laugh. We pretend to be rational people but we are not.

With the technology we have today the world is becoming a very small place. We can't go on like this dividing wealth and power in selfish ways. Wikileaks is like pus coming out of a wound. Wheter you like it or not, it is a logical evolution of a long disease. If it's there, it's there for a reason. It's not Julian Assange, or the volunteers behind it. It is a mirror of ourselves. So LOL at the people who want to shut it down, and LOL at those who feel it is bad for their country.

The guy who makes that remark about the assassination thing says "this guy is a traitor and a treasonist, he's broken every law of the USA"...

Julian Assange cannot be a traitor or treasonist to America when he is an Australian.

This is why people not from America, don't think highly of America.

mezbup Wrote:The guy who makes that remark about the assassination thing says "this guy is a traitor and a treasonist, he's broken every law of the USA"...

Julian Assange cannot be a traitor or treasonist to America when he is an Australian.

This is why people not from America, don't think highly of America.

I think you're doing 'people not from America' a disservice and I also think you're capable of better reasoning than this. You're just perpetuating a simplistic polarity.

nest0r Wrote:

mezbup Wrote:The guy who makes that remark about the assassination thing says "this guy is a traitor and a treasonist, he's broken every law of the USA"...

Julian Assange cannot be a traitor or treasonist to America when he is an Australian.

This is why people not from America, don't think highly of America.

I think you're doing 'people not from America' a disservice and I also think you're capable of better reasoning than this. You're just perpetuating a simplistic polarity.

No, I think it's a very real sentiment. One I hear quite often.

nadiatims Wrote:Considering that the government are civil servants working for citizens and paid by tax dollars isn't it reasonable to expect that all information regarding their work/policies/dealings/etc be publicly available? Would you accept your dentist, hairdresser or mechanic whose services you pay for acting secretively and being cagey with the truth or would you stop hiring them...?
Regarding diplomacy, why (other than to enact policies that will be harmful to other parts of the world)is there even any need to keep negotiations between any two countries secret from the rest of the world?

The world must look awfully pretty through your rose-colored glasses. Diplomacy is not as straightforward as fixing a root canal. It's necessary to keep secrets when there are those in the world who seek to harm us or exploit our weaknesses. Do you really think we can fight terrorism if they are aware of every move and communication we make? Do you play poker with all your cards face up? Yeesh.

mezbup Wrote:The guy who makes that remark about the assassination thing says "this guy is a traitor and a treasonist, he's broken every law of the USA"...

Julian Assange cannot be a traitor or treasonist to America when he is an Australian.

This is why people not from America, don't think highly of America.

The guy who makes that remark about America says "This is why people not from America, don't think highly of America."

He acts like the entire country can be defined by the actions and words of a few cherry-picked individuals.

This is why people from America, don't think highly of people not from America.

nadiatims Wrote:Considering that the government are civil servants working for citizens and paid by tax dollars isn't it reasonable to expect that all information regarding their work/policies/dealings/etc be publicly available? Would you accept your dentist, hairdresser or mechanic whose services you pay for acting secretively and being cagey with the truth or would you stop hiring them...?
Regarding diplomacy, why (other than to enact policies that will be harmful to other parts of the world)is there even any need to keep negotiations between any two countries secret from the rest of the world?

I actually was sort of in line with this before I started thinking more about Wikileaks as it got to be bigger and bigger news. Sometimes secrecy is only benefiting people people who are trying to cover their own ass (e.g., like with the Pentagon papers), but other times secrecy is actually helping the populace.

For example, when you're going through a process in order to get knowledge, it's often best to keep aspects of that process a secret. We see this in non-political situations as well. You mention dentist, for example. Let's say we're trying to do a study to see whether a new kind of chemical does a better job than Novocain at killing pain. Well, at least some pieces of information is revealed to the people involved--they are told they're going to be part of the study, stuff like that. But then a lot of secrecy is necessary. The patients won't know whether they're in the control group (they get Novocain), or whether they're in the test group (they get the new drug). In fact, the less they know about the experiment, the better, since if they know it can mess up the results (they might be worried that the new drug doesn't work well, so they'll view themselves as having more pain if they know they have the new drug). In fact, it's best to do it double blind, where even the dentist has no idea which people are getting the Novocain or the new drug. So, using secrecy, in the end we can get better knowledge.

Or, here's an example more akin to the diplomacy thing: Let's say you have a suspicion that your friend's girlfriend is cheating on him. Now, you don't really have any strong information that points you in that direction, it's just a feeling. Should you immediately tell your friend? Probably not, because he'll disagree with you when he finds out you don't really have good reason to believe that, and he'll probably get mad at you. And if your friend tells his girlfriend she'll probably try to get him to hang out with you less, et cetera. The whole thing is a mess. But you can use your suspicion to sort of be on the look out, and continue the process of getting more and more information, until you can make your case. But in the mean time it's best for your thoughts not to be public. This is just an example, I'm sure you know what I mean and can think of a better one.

Anyway, some diplomatic cables can be like that. Two countries are talking about something, let's say it's Saudi Arabia and the US talking about Iran. Now, maybe they're just going through the process of thinking about how to handle Iran. Nothing is really set in stone, and both countries are just trying to figure something out. What they consider doing is not the official policies of either country, it's just some people talking and trying to get more information and decide what to do. Is there a reason for this to be made public? Seems like not really. People aren't THAT committed to what they're saying, they're just trying to figure things out. If you revealed everything every step of the way, it would be silly.

In addition to this, I think you should consider individual examples. There's a few documents that Wikileaks leaked that just don't make sense to me. One I already mentioned--the list of things/organizations that are important to US national security. It included things like medical facilities in foreign countries. I don't think there's any benefits to this document being public, since it's not revealing anything bad that anybody has done. Yet, now if someone is angry at the US, and a lot of people are, they could potentially bomb one of those medical facilities.

I also don't understand why they released the document that tells the names of citizens in Afghanistan who have helped the US.

So, I think Wikileaks has done a good amount of harm.

However, I think they've done a lot of good too. When there is corruption, and when people who do shitty things are trying to cover their own ass, it's good to reveal that. Plenty of documents have done that.

So, I would like to see an organization that could release documents, but distinguish between information that is useful for fighting corruption, and information that just puts people in danger or is unnecessary. The current leadership of Wikileaks seems to unable to do that. And, even if Wikileaks were trying to distinguish between the two, the more money it started to receive, the more screwed up Wikileaks itself would get due to corruption.

PS: I laugh so much every time someone calls Assange a traitor. *face-palm*

[ファブリス]

Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) on Wikileaks, Sweeden and hot chicks!

Scott Adams blog Wrote:To be fair, I don't know if Assange's alleged broken condom is because the product was defective. We have good evidence that Assange has the world's biggest set of nuts, so assuming some degree of proportionality, he'd put a strain on any brand of condom that didn't have rebar ribs.

^^
Scott Adams blog

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/...helped.php

American tax payers' money put to good use: funding drugs and child prostitutes for Afghani police.

vinniram Wrote:China is spreading its influence *peacefully*, especially in Africa and South East Asia.

And Tibet! Don't forget Tibet. And the Uyghurs! They got all peaceful with the Uyghurs recently, too.

The New Yorker's June 7 profile of Assange, if you're interested in who he is and where he comes from:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...ntPage=all

Anna B Wrote:The New Yorker's June 7 profile of Assange, if you're interested in who he is and where he comes from:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...ntPage=all

Something tells me nest0r won't like that.

Javizy Wrote:

Anna B Wrote:The New Yorker's June 7 profile of Assange, if you're interested in who he is and where he comes from:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...ntPage=all

Something tells me nest0r won't like that.

That profile (which follows the usual form of dark hagiography) is mentioned in this which I posted earlier:

"WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.

Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.

In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.

On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. Last year, without permission, it published the full text of the highly regarded 2009 book about corruption in Kenya called “It’s Our Turn to Eat” by investigative reporter Michela Wrong (as first reported by Chris McGreal inThe Guardian on April 9). By posting a pirated version of the book and making it freely available, WikiLeaks almost certainly disrupted sales of the book and made it harder for Ms. Wrong and other anti-corruption reporters to perform their important work and to get it published. Repeated protests and pleas from the author were required before WikiLeaks (to its credit) finally took the book offline.

“Soon enough,” observed Raffi Khatchadourian in a long profile of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange in The New Yorker (June 7), “Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most–power without accountability–is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.”"

- http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2...wikileaks/

"Raising the question, as we did, of the danger of releasing certain sensitive data does not in any way constitute incitement to censorship or, less still, support for the war. Should we be blamed for pointing out that the information provided by Wikileaks could be used by the Taliban and could serve as grounds for reprisals? Is it contrary to a humanitarian organisation’s vocation to draw attention to the possible impact on human lives of high-risk information? Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks’ recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?

A media is responsible for what it publishes or disseminates. To remind it of that is not to wish its disappearance. Quite the contrary. Editorial responsibility, liked freedom of expression, to which it is linked, cannot be reduced to mere partisan or ideological interests. " -http://en.rsf.org/united-states-criticism-of-wikileaks-is-not-a-17-08-2010,38169.html

"You had a falling-out with the other Wikileaks founders?
Young: Yes. But it was over this: someone said that the initial goal was $5 million. That caught my attention. One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there's great treachery and lying going on.

And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that's the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That's pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff.

How long were you involved before you resigned?
Young: Not long. A few weeks. It wasn't long. However, one of the things that happened is that somehow I got subscribed to that list under another nym and the messages kept coming in. I got to keep reading what they were saying about me after they booted me off. The messages kept coming in. So I published those too.

Did they criticize you for, well, leaking about Wikileaks?
Young: They certainly did. They accused me of being an old fart and jealous. And all these things that come up, that typically happen when someone doesn't like you. That's okay. I know you would never do that and journalists never do that, but ordinary people do this all the time." - http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

"Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal “shield law” protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media." - http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-let...38130.html

That link Fabrice posted is good, which is to be expected because it seems this Geert Lovink person is pretty smart.

Ex-WikiLeaker Explains His Spinoff Group, OpenLeaks

"Former WikiLeaks staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg has always considered Julian Assange’s whistle-blowing site a two-pipe operation: One pipe takes submissions in from anonymous leakers, another publishes them out to an uncensorable web site.

But since defecting from WikiLeaks in September and watching the global controversy build around the secret-spilling organization, he’s taking a different approach with his own leak-focused project: Keep the anonymous submissions channel. Ditch the controversial and resource-draining publishing piece altogether.

The German Domscheit-Berg, along with several other former Wikileaks staffers, plans to launch a website they’re calling OpenLeaks as early as next week, Domscheit-Berg told Forbes in an interview. Like WikiLeaks, the new site will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike its parent site, it doesn’t promise to publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact-checking, redaction and publication. That simple tweak, argues Domscheit-Berg, will allow OpenLeaks to accomplish much of the transparency achieved by WikiLeaks, without drawing the same political fury and legal pressure."

Anna B Wrote:

vinniram Wrote:China is spreading its influence *peacefully*, especially in Africa and South East Asia.

And Tibet! Don't forget Tibet. And the Uyghurs! They got all peaceful with the Uyghurs recently, too.

I was especially impressed by how a month or so ago, China peacefully impelled its people to peacefully riot all over China and peacefully vandalize Japanese stores and businesses in response to Japan violently setting free the Chinese sailors who peacefully rammed a Japanese coast guard ship.

Er... wait.

I didn't realize that was sarcasm without the italics, thanks! ;p

This person has some interesting points about the effect of Wikileaks: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/09/everyon...elebrated/

Maybe OpenLeaks will be like Celestial Being from Gundam 00 (impartial and tactical).

[ファブリス]

Quote:One source from Ardin’s old university of Uppsala reported rumors that she had stopped co-operating with the prosecution service several weeks ago, and that this was part of the reason for the long delay in proceeding with charges — and what still appears to be an absence of charges.

"Assange accuser flees to Middle East, may not be cooperating with police"

There are some things that I think are missing from these debates.
I will leave you to ponder on these questions:

Leaking secret information is a potentially life-threatening affair.
It is also very difficult, due to tight security checks, which will deter almost anyone who has a grudge or bad view of the company's practices.
So, in any organization, 99.9% of its workers choose not to steal or leak information.

And yet there are people who despite all of this, remain motivated to the point of overcoming all of these barriers.
What makes someone steal information from a company or organization, and give it to someone who can put it out on the open?
What are the factors that make people want to leak? Revenge? Jealousy? Espionage? Money? Fame? Repulse?

Why is the volume of "classified" information files so large?
According to TIME magazine, there have been more than 1000 people assigned with choosing what information is "classified" or not. Right now, more than 54 million files were selected to be removed out of public scrutiny. Apparently, most of the classified information had no necessity to be "classified" in the first place. Deciding what information is really damaging, from what is just gossip, has become an impossible task for any organization or individual to achieve.
So, we can see that the increase in volume of leaked material closely accompanies the increase in volume of material that is considered "secret" by government officials. All of this also means that the number of people who have access to this information greatly increases as well.
Apparently, around 3 million people had clearance to view these cables.
About 400,000 to 800,000 people had clearance to view top-secret info.
Why was security so lax, allowing a 22-year-old man to download more information than what he could chew? In the end, the USA's government is directly responsible for allowing this leak to occur, just as it was irresponsible in allowing 9/11 to take place.

The irony is a terrible one: 9/11 was not prevented because government agencies were keeping information away from each other. Cablegate happened because agencies were sharing too much.

therefore, let us return to Wikileaks. How can you publish such huge packages of documents? How to manage and organize all of this information? And how do you publish them within a reasonable time frame, instead of taking years to process the information (and avoid being taken down by the government in the process?). Only companies of the size of Google would be prepared to handle such a huge load. On the other hand, Wikileaks is a small organization, with little experience in handling such a hot potato. Therefore, they had to resort to partially outsourcing the work involved to traditional media agencies, even knowing that they would have no control in the way or order that the media agencies would choose to present the material. Surely Wikileaks suspected that the most irrelevant material would be published first, since newspapers love to make some bang and buck with gossip. If nothing else, that is symptomatic of the infotainment industry we are left with today. But, I suppose Wikileaks assumed it was a reasonable compromise, if that meant that eventually, as the days went on, the more interesting stories would come to light. Therefore, Wikileaks releases the redacted cables, in accordance with what the newspapers decide to publish. It might not turn out too bad: the Guardian is inviting people to recommend investigation topics. Some good stuff might come out of it. 11 days in, only a fraction of cables have been leaked, and I have already seen quite a few "infuriating" stories.

Of course, this information processing could have taken more time, and could have been done in a more relaxed manner. But then comes the big bomb.
Manning does the most stupid thing of his life, and reveals himself to a hacker that then informs the government. The bomb has exploded. The hunt is on, and both Manning and Wikileaks are being watched more carefully than before (no one really complained much about Wikileaks when they put stories about Kenya, Switzerland, and other smaller countries). On one hand, Wikileaks now has the responsibility to release the information, while it can still make an impact, and gather public support for Manning before he is judged in court. On the other hand, Assange also makes the incredibly stupid mistake to act like a rock star and go to bed with some groupies.
so now, the war is being fought on two fronts, and this could all have been avoided by both Manning and Assange. Only public opinion and support can save them now.

My conclusion is that Wikileaks is a "work in progress", and presents us with a yardstick for a new type of media agency that is making use of technology in a innovative way to present information that might be too hot for other people to handle. In my opinion, I believe that the big mistake of the pundits and public opinion is to assume that Wikileaks is a "finished", completely matured entity. They are making mistakes like any other human, and learning from that process, and paving the way for other, more professional and efficient organizations to follow. Openleaks just might be one of them. These new companies will be more accountable, transparent, and will strike a balance with the ethics of tradicional media, while keeping the inovations brought by Wikileaks. I am sure that when the time comes for Wikileaks to release their banking documents, they will do a number of things differently than now, since they will have gained more experience (assuming they survive that long). But right now, there are few alternatives to Wikileaks. The power of old media watchdogs has for the most part died. This could inject new life into the process.

Remember, governments have told us, time and again, to justify our continued surveillance:
"If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
Governments cannot ask the public to make extreme sacrifices that the government itself is not willing to make. Even Obama's feeble attempts at transparency have only resulted in more secrecy.

I am OK with Google having my private information, as long as they continue to give me a quality service and useful products, to the utmost of their abilities. I deleted all of my private information out of Facebook, because all I was getting was stupid Farmville, and other horrible spammy applications.
I am OK with my girlfriend checking my cellphone and e-mails, and I have told her about any dark piece of my past that I could honestly remember. If I talk with another hot girl, or if I go clubbing with my friends, I tell her what happened in detail, even if I dance with other girls. By being immediately open, I have managed to prevent the danger of my girlfriend blowing things out of proportion, and imagining things that never happened. Fortunately, she trusts me to do the right thing, and I trust her as well. I hope we can continue like this.
I am OK with the police and the government strip-searching me at airports, or anywhere they feel like, until I am naked. As long as other people can supervise the process, and as long as I can strip-search them as well.
That is a deal I would be fully willing to take.
I also doubt these cables will do as much damage as people say it will. But none of us will have to wait too much time to find out.

Sorry for the horribly long post.

[ファブリス]

bebio Wrote:The irony is a terrible one: 9/11 was not prevented because government agencies were keeping information away from each other.

Not to derail the topic but...

ae911truth.org Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

buildingwhat.org Building What? (Building 7)

BuildingWhat? interview on Geraldo (FoxNews) Nov 13 2010

I am personally convinced that the reactions to Wikileaks that we are seeing now, are not because of what has been released so far, but what is to follow if Wikileaks is not stopped.

The Director of El Pais explains why Cablegate is the biggest piece of news they have ever handled in their history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec...pact-spain

And The Guardian analyses the varied impact of these leaks around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec...d-reaction

And some news that escaped me the first time, about how US intelligence forces were responsible for the torture of an innocent german citizen, and put pressure on Germany to silence the prosecution of the agents responsible for this action. Horrifying stuff...
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us...-rendition

ファブリス Wrote:Not to derail the topic but...

ae911truth.org Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

buildingwhat.org Building What? (Building 7)

BuildingWhat? interview on Geraldo (FoxNews) Nov 13 2010

I am personally convinced that the reactions to Wikileaks that we are seeing now, are not because of what has been released so far, but what is to follow if Wikileaks is not stopped.

There were no explosives in building 7. For one thing, there were so many fires burning in the building that the firefighters couldn't even deal with them (there was fire on 12 of the floors). If the building was full of explosions they would have exploded a lot more quickly considering that entire floors were covered in fire for an entire afternoon.

Also, the firefighters all became worried that the building was going to collapse because of creaking noises, and because there was a bulge from the 10th to the 13th floor that indicated that the structure wasn't stable. You gotta remember, we're not just talking fire here, a large gash was made in the southwest side (the side where they saw the bulge) of the building by falling debris, all the way from the 8th to the 18th floor. If it fell due to explosives, there wouldn't be signs of loss of structural integrity before the explosives went off.

An interview with the deputy fire chief can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/2008061611010...ayden.html

And, the fact is, the way you prove something is true it not by collecting mediocre academics or people with vaguely related jobs who agree with you. The fact is that architects have no training to let them know under what conditions a building could fall like that, so why are websites collecting architects that say that? Because it's a nutty conspiracy theory, the same as people who say that we never went to the moon.

I'm not one to sing the praises of firefighters, since most of the time I hear them singing their own praises too much, but saying that building 7 was brought down by explosives is a big insult to the firefighters who were in there risking their lives. Those same firefighters noticed something was wrong and managed to get everyone out of the building with no casualties.

(It's the middle of the night, excuse my mediocre writing)