Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Citabria on June 25, 2007, 09:29:36 PM
-
being a history buff was doing some reading and found an interesting quote..
President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.
Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.
-
c'mon no sense in beating about the BUSH
-
Originally posted by Citabria
being a history buff was doing some reading and found an interesting quote..
------
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.
------
The first attack (on the Maddox) has some credibility:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Tonkingunboats.jpg)
The second attack (on the Desoto) is the one with an inexperienced sonar mans testimony.
-
doh! you got me storch.
I better explain why I was doing such reading...
I just watched this two hour documentary on demolition science and speculation...
its somthing I never thought twice about. I voted for bush twice and consider myself a republican
but now that I have seen more scientific analysis...
this drives me to want to know more.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+Mysteries
-
watching this one now. its fascinating too...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change&hl=en
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/581_1182827143_worms.jpg)
-
indeed and what a can.
-
In just the first few minutes there are inaccuracies in that first movie.
They talk about how the Towers were designed to withstand hits from a Boeing 707, then say a smaller 767 hit the towers. The dimensions of a 707 are smaller than the 767. They also say max takeoff weight is 334,000 lbs. Boeing lists the max takeoff weight at 395,000 lbs for a difference of 61,000 lbs. A quick trip to Boeing's website showed those inaccuracies.
*edit* Even the max takeoff weight of the 707 is listed at 2000 lbs more than the movie says the 767 is.
-
I watched about 20 minutes of that. (Talking about the first one) I just don't have the time to watch all of it. However, my impression is that whoever made it, has an agenda that they are pushing.
Repeatedly they talk about the fire causing the failure of the steel structure. They show multiple skyscrapers burning for hours and hours. They seem to ignore the ramifications of nearly 400,000 lbs slamming into the buildings at 500+ mph (?)
They had a short segment on explosions. Then showed the one of the towers collapsing and said to listen for an explosion just before the collapse started. All I heard was one continuous roar as the building came down and I rewound it twice. /shrug
-
yeah a slant on that first one for sure. I think a lot of it has a political conspiracy agenda but I think the more I look at the info and the actual firsthand accounts from that day a case is made for an independant investigation. I have gotten hooked on trying to find more info thats not jaded and this one is pretty good... the nonsensationalist part that I watched a bit of starts halfway through the video with scientists and architechts explaining what they have seen or found.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4488542891415681105&hl=en
what I find interesting is the information given by the MIT guys and architechts in this video. at about halfway through push the bar to about exactly the middle.
-
the towers were built by a new method of construction, they used lightweight trusses instead of solid beams ( the empire state building has solid beams) ,the truss construction was both faster and cheaper to build, and the fire proofing was not applied correctly.
The heat caused the trusses to fail, building then fell down.
-
Winter war 1939
The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union's Red Army initiated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila while pretending that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda bonus that launched the Winter War four days later.
According to the archives of Soviet party leader Andrei Zhdanov, the entire incident was orchestrated in order to paint Finland as an aggressor and launch an offensive. The Finnish side disclaimed responsibility for the attacks and identified Soviet artillery as their source — indeed, the war diaries of the nearby Finnish artillery batteries show that Mainila was out of range of all of them, as they had been withdrawn previously to prevent such incidents.
However, in the days following the Shelling of Mainila, the Soviet propaganda machine generated publicity about other fictitious Finnish aggressions, renounced the non-aggression treaty with Finland, and on November 30, 1939 launched the first offensives of the Winter War.
-
Oh like Architects have ANY IDEA as to how buildings stand up, much less fall down. Have you actually ever talked to an architect? Very few of them can tell their bellybutton from a hole in the ground. There are a couple that are very good, but it's difficult to find them.
Anyway, I'm studying architectural engineering. I'm focusing on Construction Management, but have extensively studied Structural Engineering, architectural design, fire dynamics and fire protection.
Given what happened from the jet's collision blowing off all Fire Proofing, the buildings fell exactly as they should have.
Oh, and John, the Fireproofing WAS applied correctly. It's just that they never considered that a massive explosion could blow it off the structure. The fire proofing is no more then flaky foam. It's purpose is to DELAY the heat transfer from the fire to the metal. Once the metal gets to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, you are in DEEP ****. At 600 degrees it has lost 50% of it's structural capacity, taking the load it can hold below the load it was designed for INCLUDING safety factors.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oh like Architects have ANY IDEA as to how buildings stand up, much less fall down. Have you actually ever talked to an architect? Very few of them can tell their bellybutton from a hole in the ground. There are a couple that are very good, but it's difficult to find them.
Summary: Architects are idiots, don't listen to them.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Anyway, I'm studying architectural engineering. I'm focusing on Construction Management, but have extensively studied Structural Engineering, architectural design, fire dynamics and fire protection.
Given what happened from the jet's collision blowing off all Fire Proofing, the buildings fell exactly as they should have.
Summary: I'm studying Architecture, listen to me!
Huh? :)
-
Originally posted by Engine
Summary: Architects are idiots, don't listen to them.
Summary: I'm studying Architecture, listen to me!
Huh? :)
I was just about to point this out but you did it much much better. :rofl
-
I know this reading thing is hard for you. But the difference is in the first word after the word Architect.
It doesn't actually denote being an architect, but it clarifies what kind of engineering.
Just as much if someone were to say to you, I am an engineer, you would probably reply, What kind?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oh like Architects have ANY IDEA as to how buildings stand up, much less fall down. Have you actually ever talked to an architect? Very few of them can tell their bellybutton from a hole in the ground. There are a couple that are very good, but it's difficult to find them.
Anyway, I'm studying architectural engineering. I'm focusing on Construction Management, but have extensively studied Structural Engineering, architectural design, fire dynamics and fire protection.
Given what happened from the jet's collision blowing off all Fire Proofing, the buildings fell exactly as they should have.
Oh, and John, the Fireproofing WAS applied correctly. It's just that they never considered that a massive explosion could blow it off the structure. The fire proofing is no more then flaky foam. It's purpose is to DELAY the heat transfer from the fire to the metal. Once the metal gets to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, you are in DEEP ****. At 600 degrees it has lost 50% of it's structural capacity, taking the load it can hold below the load it was designed for INCLUDING safety factors.
Would you want your family doctor to perform brain surgery on your child? Architects specialize in the big picture, engineers specialize on specifics.
Architects rely on mechanical engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, surveyors, landscape architects and often interior designers to do their specific jobs. The architect’s job is to design for aesthetic appeal, cost and efficiency. They spend much of their time coordinating the engineers’ work. You can’t have a structural member, HVAC and lighting all in one spot. Architects also follow through the project and make sure that all contractors do their jobs as described in the specs. Very often the variety of contractors involved take shortcuts that could lead to serious problems or result in lower quality. Architects do have a broad understanding of many fields; they are the only ones who conceive and see the project in its entirety. Ultimately, they are responsible that everything is done correctly. Most college architecture programs focus very little on the effects of fire and fireproofing; this is a major weakness in my opinion. “Structures I-IV” courses are standard in college architecture programs. Obviously the course is not as in depth as a structural degree, but it is a fundamental class. Architects have a pretty good idea why buildings stand up, I do know many.
Unless you want a city to look like an army base, however, you don’t want structural engineers designing your city’s buildings.
-
Ems Telegram 1870
-
Reality can easily be faked........
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Would you want your family doctor to perform brain surgery on your child? Architects specialize in the big picture, engineers specialize on specifics.
Architects rely on mechanical engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, surveyors, landscape architects and often interior designers to do their specific jobs. The architect’s job is to design for aesthetic appeal, cost and efficiency. They spend much of their time coordinating the engineers’ work. You can’t have a structural member, HVAC and lighting all in one spot. Architects also follow through the project and make sure that all contractors do their jobs as described in the specs. Very often the variety of contractors involved take shortcuts that could lead to serious problems or result in lower quality. Architects do have a broad understanding of many fields; they are the only ones who conceive and see the project in its entirety. Ultimately, they are responsible that everything is done correctly. Most college architecture programs focus very little on the effects of fire and fireproofing; this is a major weakness in my opinion. “Structures I-IV” courses are standard in college architecture programs. Obviously the course is not as in depth as a structural degree, but it is a fundamental class. Architects have a pretty good idea why buildings stand up, I do know many.
Unless you want a city to look like an army base, however, you don’t want structural engineers designing your city’s buildings.
Wrong. The job of the architect is to give the engineers ulcers as they fix all the **** ups.
The Job of the architect is to design the aesthetics. It is the job of the pre-construction team to do Value Engineering and constructibility reviews.
It is not the architect that leads the MEP coordination, but the Construction Project Managers.
It is not the architect that is responsible, but the Professional Engineers. Past the design phase, it is the Construction Managers who are responsible for everything being built right.
Architects are just barely worth the air they breathe. Barely.
-
Only in AH BBS can you start a thread on history of wars and end up bashing architects. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only in AH BBS can you start a thread on history of wars and end up bashing architects. :rolleyes:
It's always cool to bash architects.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's always cool to bash architects.
Somewhere, there is an architect saying "the idiot engineers didn't build it the way I designed it!" ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only in AH BBS can you start a thread on history of wars and end up bashing architects. :rolleyes:
read these and it may help explain it...
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/book1.jpg)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/9780521278584.gif)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/alein_hit_head.gif)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong. The job of the architect is to give the engineers ulcers as they fix all the **** ups.
The Job of the architect is to design the aesthetics. It is the job of the pre-construction team to do Value Engineering and constructibility reviews.
It is not the architect that leads the MEP coordination, but the Construction Project Managers.
It is not the architect that is responsible, but the Professional Engineers. Past the design phase, it is the Construction Managers who are responsible for everything being built right.
Architects are just barely worth the air they breathe. Barely.
My wife has degrees in architecture and interior design from Kent State University. She worked for a small firm in Colorado for seven years. People/businesses hire architects to design buildings, hire all of the various engineers, put the project up for bid with various construction companies, choose one, and follow the project through completion. I don’t know what they have taught you in school, but this is how it is done in the real world. I’ve seen it again and again. The architect is the only one on the project from conception to completion. If anyone screws up the architect can be sued. They can sue the engineers/construction companies in turn, but they are ultimately responsible.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
My wife has degrees in architecture and interior design from Kent State University. She worked for a small firm in Colorado for seven years. People/businesses hire architects to design buildings, hire all of the various engineers, put the project up for bid with various construction companies, choose one, and follow the project through completion. I don’t know what they have taught you in school, but this is how it is done in the real world. I’ve seen it again and again. The architect is the only one on the project from conception to completion. If anyone screws up the architect can be sued. They can sue the engineers/construction companies in turn, but they are ultimately responsible.
yup.
-
doing more reading I found the lavon affair..
The Lavon Affair refers to the scandal over a failed Israeli covert operation in Egypt known as Operation Susannah, in which Egyptian, American and British-owned targets in Egypt were bombed in the summer of 1954. It became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon, who was forced to resign because of the incident, or cryptically as The Unfortunate Affair (Hebrew: òñ÷ äáéù Esek HaBish).
Operation Susannah
In the early 1950s the United States began pressuring the British to withdraw from the Suez Canal[citation needed], and thereby abandon two operative treaties, the Convention of Constantinople and the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 that made the canal a neutral zone under British control. Israel was strongly opposed to the British withdrawal, as it feared that it would remove a moderating effect on Nasser's military ambitions, especially toward Israel, but diplomatic methods failed to sway the British. In the summer of 1954 Colonel Binyamin Gibli, the chief of Israel's military intelligence, Aman, initiated Operation Suzannah in order to reverse that decision. The goal of the Operation was to carry out bombings and other acts of sabotage in Egypt with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the withdrawal.[1]
The top-secret cell, Unit 131, which was to carry out the operation, had existed since 1948 and under Aman since 1950. At the time of Operation Susannah, Unit 131 was the subject of a bitter dispute between Aman and Mossad over who should control it.
Unit 131 operatives had been recruited several years before, when the Israeli intelligence officer Avram Dar arrived in Cairo undercover as a British citizen of Gibraltar called John Darling. He had recruited several Egyptian Jews who had previously been active in illegal emigration activities and trained them for covert operations.
Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, a post office in Alexandria was firebombed, and on July 14, the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo, and a British-owned theater were bombed. The homemade bombs, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine, were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths.
Before the group began Israeli agent Avraham Seidenberg (Avri Elad ) was sent to oversee the operations. Seidenberg assumed the identity of Paul Frank, a former SS officer with Nazi underground connections. Avraham Seidenberg allegedly informed the Egyptians resulting in the Egyptian Intelligence Service following a suspect to his target, the Rio Theatre, where a fire engine was standing by. Egyptian authorities prematurely arrested this suspect, Philip Natanson, when his bomb accidentally ignited prematurely in his pocket. Having searched his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and names of accomplices to the operation. Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis.
Colonel Dar and Seidenberg had managed to escape. One suspect was tortured to death in prison and Hungarian born Israeli Max Bennett committed suicide. The trial began on December 11 and lasted until January 27, 1955; two of the accused (Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar) were condemned to execution by hanging and two acquitted with the rest receiving lengthy prison terms. The trial was widely criticized as a show trial, and there were credible allegations that evidence had been extracted by torture. [1]
Two of the imprisoned operatives, Meir Meyuhas and Meir Za'afran, were released in 1962, after having served seven year jail sentences. The rest were eventually freed in February 1968, in a secret addendum to a prisoner of war exchange.
Soon after the affair, Mossad chief Isser Harel expressed suspicion to Aman concerning the integrity of Avraham Seidenberg. Despite his concerns, Aman continued using Seidenberg for intelligence operations until 1956, when he was caught trying to sell Israeli documents to the Egyptians. Seidenberg was tried and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. In 1980, Harel publicly revealed evidence that Seidenberg had been turned by the Egyptians even before Operation Suzannah. If true, this would imply that Egyptian Intelligence was aware of the operation from the beginning.
[edit] Political aftermath
In meetings with prime minister Moshe Sharett, secretary of defense Pinhas Lavon denied any knowledge of the operation. When intelligence chief Gibli contradicted Lavon, Sharrett commissioned a board of inquiry consisting of Israeli Supreme Court Justice Isaac Olshan and the first chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Yaakov Dori that was unable to find conclusive evidence that Lavon had authorized the operation. Lavon tried to fix the blame on Shimon Peres, who was the secretary general of the defense ministry, and Gibli for insubordination and criminal negligence. Sharett resolved the dilemma by siding with Peres, who along with Moshe Dayan testified against Lavon, after which Lavon resigned. Former prime minister David Ben-Gurion succeeded Lavon as minister of defense.
In April of 1960, a review of minutes from the inquiry found inconsistencies and possibly a fraudulent document in Gibli's original testimony that seemed to support Lavon's account of events. During this time, it also came to light that Seidenberg (the Israeli agent running Operation Suzannah in Egypt), had committed perjury during the original inquiry. Seidenberg was also suspected of betraying the group to Egyptian authorities; though the charges were never proven, he was eventually sentenced to a jail term of 10 years. Ben-Gurion scheduled closed hearings with a new board of inquiry chaired by Chaim Cohen, a supreme court justice.
This inquiry found that the perjury indeed had been committed, and that Lavon had not authorized the operation. Sharett and Levi Eshkol tried to issue a statement that would placate both Lavon and those who had opposed him. Ben-Gurion refused to accept the compromise and viewed it as a divisive play within the Mapai party. After another investigative committee sided with the Cohen inquiry, Ben-Gurion resigned from his post as defense minister. This led to the expulsion of Lavon from the Histadrut labor union and an early call for new elections which changed the political structure in Israel.
It should be noted that the specifics of Operation Susannah were not public at the time of the political upheaval.
[edit] Legacy
While Israeli concerns about Nasser's military ambitions turned out to have some merit, Operation Suzannah and the Lavon Affair turned out to be disastrous for Israel in several ways:
The Egyptian government used the trial as a pretext for a series of efforts to punish Egyptian Jews culminating in 1958 when, following the Suez Crisis, 25,000 Jews were expelled by Egypt and at least 1,000 ended up in prisons and detention camps.
Israel lost significant standing and credibility in its relations with the United Kingdom and the United States that would take years to repair.
The tactics of the operation led to deep-seated suspicion of Israeli intelligence methods, such as agent provocateurs and false flag operations.
The political aftermath caused considerable political turmoil in Israel that affected the influence of its government.
In March 2005, Israel publicly honored the surviving operatives, and President Moshe Katsav presented each with a certificate of appreciation for their efforts on behalf of the state, ending decades of official denial by Israel.[2]
[edit] See also
History of Israel (under "Lavon affair")
Moshe Marzouk
[edit] Notes
^ According to historian Shabtai Teveth, who wrote one of the more detailed accounts, the assignment was "To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'." (Ben-Gurion's Spy, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 81)
^ "Israel Honors Egyptian Spies 50 Years After Fiasco", Reuters, March 30, 2005.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
My wife has degrees in architecture and interior design from Kent State University. She worked for a small firm in Colorado for seven years. People/businesses hire architects to design buildings, hire all of the various engineers, put the project up for bid with various construction companies, choose one, and follow the project through completion. I don’t know what they have taught you in school, but this is how it is done in the real world. I’ve seen it again and again. The architect is the only one on the project from conception to completion. If anyone screws up the architect can be sued. They can sue the engineers/construction companies in turn, but they are ultimately responsible.
Well, your wife has been pulling your chain. All design firms indemnify themselves from all claims in the basic general purpose contract. Meaning, the architects and engineers aren't responsible for what happens. Guess who is ultimately responsible. That would be the Construction Management firm. Even if they didn't design a single square foot of the project, they are responsible for it.
There are many forms of project delivery. There's only one form in which just the architect is there from start to finish, and this is losing it's popularity compared to all the rest.
-
laser, is there ever anything you are correctly informed on?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well, your wife has been pulling your chain. All design firms indemnify themselves from all claims in the basic general purpose contract. Meaning, the architects and engineers aren't responsible for what happens. Guess who is ultimately responsible. That would be the Construction Management firm. Even if they didn't design a single square foot of the project, they are responsible for it.
There are many forms of project delivery. There's only one form in which just the architect is there from start to finish, and this is losing it's popularity compared to all the rest.
My wife pulling my chain? I guess she, her bosses, co-workers, work associates and college friends must have all been pulling a fast one on me. I’d have trouble recalling all the architects and draftsmen I know and have spoken with about various aspects of the job. One thing I can tell you is that with any field of college study the real world turns out much different than you think once you are employed.
Anyone involved in a project is responsible for his or her work and can be sued. The architect is always involved if something goes wrong, however. They regularly make site visits to ensure that the correct materials are being used and procedures are being followed. It seemed that every project someone’s doing something wrong and the architect is the one who tells them to do it again/right. Sure, contractors use sub contractors and check their work also, etc.
The larger and more unique a project, the more likely an architect is directly involved. Cookie cutter neighborhoods often go up without architects, but not skyscrapers or big buildings. My wife did a lot of LDS churches. They have three designs, small, medium and large. Drop any blind Mormon off at any LDS church anywhere and they could find their way around just like it was their home stake (provided the same size). The LDS church hires architects to see the project through even though the building plan is essentially done (except for the site plan). Why do they bother to go through an architecture firm?
-
ok let me clarify jeff king is the name of the mit engineer I am refering to in the middle of this video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4488542891415681105&hl=en
he helped rebuild twa flight 800 from little bits.
-
Peace is over rated. ;)
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
My wife pulling my chain? I guess she, her bosses, co-workers, work associates and college friends must have all been pulling a fast one on me. I’d have trouble recalling all the architects and draftsmen I know and have spoken with about various aspects of the job. One thing I can tell you is that with any field of college study the real world turns out much different than you think once you are employed.
Anyone involved in a project is responsible for his or her work and can be sued. The architect is always involved if something goes wrong, however. They regularly make site visits to ensure that the correct materials are being used and procedures are being followed. It seemed that every project someone’s doing something wrong and the architect is the one who tells them to do it again/right. Sure, contractors use sub contractors and check their work also, etc.
The larger and more unique a project, the more likely an architect is directly involved. Cookie cutter neighborhoods often go up without architects, but not skyscrapers or big buildings. My wife did a lot of LDS churches. They have three designs, small, medium and large. Drop any blind Mormon off at any LDS church anywhere and they could find their way around just like it was their home stake (provided the same size). The LDS church hires architects to see the project through even though the building plan is essentially done (except for the site plan). Why do they bother to go through an architecture firm?
The solution here is really simple. Get your hands on a standard design contract. Then you'll see that no architect or engineer will sign a contract that does not indemnify themselves from fault for anything.
I'll be waiting your apology.
-
Google "architect liability" = 1,180,000 hits. Google their insurance, why do they even have it?
-
Originally posted by Citabria
ok let me clarify jeff king is the name of the mit engineer I am refering to in the middle of this video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4488542891415681105&hl=en
he helped rebuild twa flight 800 from little bits.
I watched that guy in the middle. The one thing that seems to be common to all of these videos is that they seem to ignore the ramifications of nearly 400,000 lbs hitting the Towers at 500mph+.
That much weight hitting the towers at that speed is going to cause some serious structural damage. The mass associated with a 767 is also going to penetrate and do a lot of internal damage.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
being a history buff was doing some reading and found an interesting quote..
McKinley didn't convince the people. As I understand it, William Randolph Hearst deserves the credit for motivating the populace. His paper even provided pictures on how the saboteurs had attached the mine to the Maine.
-
sandy is right, it was Hearst that pushed for the war to sell more papers.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
McKinley didn't convince the people. As I understand it, William Randolph Hearst deserves the credit for motivating the populace. His paper even provided pictures on how the saboteurs had attached the mine to the Maine.
Well... it's wikipedia, but it's better than nothing. Yellow Journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)
Pulitzer and Hearst are often credited (or blamed) for drawing the nation into the Spanish-American War with sensationalist stories or outright lying. In fact, the vast majority of Americans did not live in New York City, and the decision makers who did live there probably relied more on staid newspapers like the Times, The Sun or the Post. The most famous example of the exaggeration is the apocryphal story that artist Frederic Remington telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and "There will be no war." Hearst responded "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." The story (a version of which appears in the Hearst-inspired Orson Welles film Citizen Kane) first appeared in the memoirs of reporter James Creelman in 1901, and there is no other source for it.
But Hearst was a war hawk after a rebellion broke out in Cuba in 1895. Stories of Cuban virtue and Spanish brutality soon dominated his front page. While the accounts were of dubious accuracy, the newspaper readers of the 19th century did not need, or necessarily want, his stories to be pure nonfiction. Historian Michael Robertson has said that "Newspaper reporters and readers of the 1890s were much less concerned with distinguishing among fact-based reporting, opinion and literature."[16]
Pulitzer, though lacking Hearst's resources, kept the story on his front page. The yellow press covered the revolution extensively and often inaccurately, but conditions on Cuba were horrific enough. The island was in a terrible economic depression, and Spanish general Valeriano Weyler, sent to crush the rebellion, herded Cuban peasants into concentration camps and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Having clamored for a fight for two years, Hearst took credit for the conflict when it came: A week after the United States declared war on Spain, he ran "How do you like the Journal's war?" on his front page.[17] In fact, President William McKinley never read the Journal, and newspapers like the Tribune and the New York Evening Post, both staunchly Republican, demanded restraint. Moreover, journalism historians have noted that yellow journalism was largely confined to New York City, and that newspapers in the rest of the country did not follow their lead. The Journal and the World were not among the top ten sources of news in regional papers, and the stories simply did not make a splash outside Gotham. [18] War came because public opinion was sickened by the bloodshed, and because conservative leaders like McKinley realized that Spain had lost control of Cuba. These factors weighed more on the president's mind than the melodramas in the New York Journal.[19]
Hearst sailed directly to Cuba, when the invasion began, as a war correspondent, providing sober and accurate accounts of the fighting. [20] Creelman later praised the work of the reporters for exposing the horrors of Spanish misrule, arguing, " no true history of the war . . . can be written without an acknowledgment that whatever of justice and freedom and progress was accomplished by the Spanish-American war was due to the enterprise and tenacity of yellow journalists, many of whom lie in unremembered graves."[21]
-
Here you go Citabria
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744&hl=en
This will scare the S**T out of you, if your not already
Dont worry though, 2012 is coming
-
Originally posted by mipoikel
Winter war 1939
According to the archives of Soviet party leader Andrei Zhdanov, the entire incident was orchestrated in order to paint Finland as an aggressor and launch an offensive.
Our .gov had "Operation Northwoods"
"a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government.."
"thanks for voting us into power.... now we're going to kill you so when your kids die in war, you wont be sad"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
-
The previous post actually shows operation Northwood inacted and the operation wasnt just for Cuba.
The boat was a listening post off Isreal. Now declassified.
The rabbit hole is very deep, if you really start to investagate.
-
Seems plausible to me Citabria.
First the Bush Administration fakes out America for eight years with a masterful creation called the Clinton administration (designed expressly to make liberalism look bad and make the rigged election of "W" in 2000 seem possible.) The Clinton Administration operation runs for eight years relying heavily on the skills of Pixar and Disney Animatronics and a giant cybetronic shrew developed by the Rand Corporation. During this time they also make use of Skunkworks time travel devices developed from parts of the alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell in the 1950s. Travelling back in time, a CIA agent posing as an angel contacts a 7th century Arabian named Muhammad and passes him a dossier approved by the CFR known as "Quran." This document teaches the Arabians expansionism and aggressive war in the name of religion.
Meanwhile back in the 20th century the CIA hires Mossad to bomb the WTC and then blames it on a 3-D hologram projected from the Shuttle known as "Bin-Laden". Meanwhile in an effort to corner the Heroin market, Dick Cheney and Haliburton authorize operation Taliban. This also provides a cover for the Bin-Laden hologram to be deactivated in the Sudan (where Sudanese officials were beginning to wonder why he never actually touched anyone) and replaced by double in Afghanistan (realizing they need a real human, the CIA recruits a member of ZZ-Top as no one has ever seen them without sunglasses and a hat). Following the rigged election of 2000, officials in Haliburton authorize the demolition of the WTC in order to create a pretext for actually seizing Iraq and eventually nuking Iran (which they calculate will drive oil prices sky high). Using a cover company - Solomon brothers - operatives posing as stock brokers infilitrate the building and place demolition explosives designed to look like PC monitors at critical points in the building. Meanwhile four airliners are taken over by Mossad Agents, and flown to secret government bases were the crew and passengers are disposed of. Simultaneously, 3 cruise missles are fired at the WTC and Pentagon and a hole in the ground in Pennsylvania is created by a controlled detonation. Relatives and friends are misled with Computer AI generated "cell phone conversations" pieced together from intercepted phone calls secretly taken from the actual passengers in the months leading up to their respective flights. The cruise missles hit the buildings just as Langley with the assistance of its "Fox News" operation takes over the feed from every major news outfit and replaces it with imagery generated by Pixar.
Pretty simple really, and just what you'd expect from a guy who can't pronounce "nuclear."
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, that's the first one that's ever made sense.
When are you going to follow up with a website and flyers?
-
Seagoon you crack me up sometimes. :rofl
-
Originally posted by 4deck
Here you go Citabria
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744&hl=en
This will scare the S**T out of you, if your not already
Dont worry though, 2012 is coming
fascinating
-
Glad you liked it.
-
Originally posted by 4deck
Here you go Citabria
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744&hl=en
This will scare the S**T out of you, if your not already
Dont worry though, 2012 is coming
Interesting stuff.
-
On original topic: IMO it is interesting that governments have such a low morale and respect for intelligence of its citizens as to claim that such small incidents would be the reason for huge years lasting aggressions. Or would we buy it? "Sure chief, they farted in your general direction -lets give 'em hell and wipe them off the earth. Oh, you got the tools ready, thats cool..."
Considering the Polish invasion and the incident of Mainila the international politics obviously require at least some kind of, even pathetic, reason to initiate aggressions that are usually planned years beforehand. Rather ridiculous actually... :p
-C+
-
On original topic: IMO it is interesting that governments have such a low morale and respect for intelligence of its citizens as to claim that such small incidents would be the reason for huge years lasting aggressions. Or would we buy it?
Why would we buy such stories from our governments? Because we have no way of knowing that we are being lied to in many cases. We are told what they want us to hear and we become outraged and grab our torches and pitchforks screaming for justice to be done.
In todays world of the internet, things are becoming harder for the government to hide.
-
It's cool to bash ANYone with a pocket protector:aok
-
most of these operations seem to be executed by officials with a chronic case of short sightedness.
where are they now?
what did they accomplish?
most of them are either dead or disgraced and removed from power.
LBJ was a prime example
he had a long history of subversive tactics against virtually everyone.
his long time mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on her deathbed laid out how he had JFK assasinated in a purely political power murder.
the USS Liberty flase flag operation he willingly sacrificed his own people in an attempt at a mideast war.
the gulf of tonkin was just the public reasoning he desired to justify open war in vietnam.
motives consistent with the desire for power and control and conflict but it all ended in regret and disolussion for him.
he ended his term in disgrace publically rejecting any bids for re-ellection.
Some leaders are very concerned with the legacy they leave behind. others desire to obtain ever greater power and control at great costs to themselves and all around them
-
I like the historical narative in the terrorstorm video but some of the info in this is misleading like the info on iran there are mitigating factors if you look any of it up on wikepedia mosedeq disolved the iranian parliament among other things that resulted in his exile beyond the US/british medeling.
also I think this alex jones guy is actually a very hardcore conspiracy theorist which makes his observations compelling but also suspect at the same time.
-
LBJ was a prime example
salamander wangled himself a Silver Star for absolutely NOTHING, as an observer on the only combat mission he ever went on---he was thinking of his future political career. Even wore the Star as president
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/johnson.silver.star/story/storypage.html
-
Our media is controlled by the govenrment...
We believe and trust our media.....
Too see wat is going on in this country one must watch the news from another country to see wat truly disgusting and awful things the government does.
That is all.
-
he had a long history of subversive tactics against virtually everyone.
I'd heard that about LBJ, that was one man you didn't want to cross.
his long time mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on her deathbed laid out how he had JFK assasinated in a purely political power murder.
I hadn't heard that. Any source for it?
the USS Liberty flase flag operation he willingly sacrificed his own people in an attempt at a mideast war.
the gulf of tonkin was just the public reasoning he desired to justify open war in vietnam.
Looking back, he sure seems like a bloodthirsty type. Any ideas on why he was so hellbent on getting the US in another war?
-
Money
-
Some of Johnson's critics, and even some of his supporters, laughingly referred to him as "Landslide Lyndon" after some key voting districts in Texas went for he and JFK at the last moment during the election of 1960. Rumors flew around that zealous Johnson supporters, who controlled the voting apparatus in those districts, had counted the votes of deceased voters who were still, mysteriously, on the voting lists.
Some of Nixon's people urged him to fight the election results in court, given the rumors ciirculating about voter fraud in Chicago and Texas. But to Nixon's credit, he chose not to put the country through such a contentious ordeal.
-
you mean Nixon did not want all the "hanging chads" counted?