@Invictus, what standard is it that you're trying to apply?

@MM - We will chat sometime about the structural integrity of WTC7 and why it had a partial.collapse due to the heat of the tower fires all arounder and *under* it (superheated sub structure). It didn't just fall and wasn't the dramatic.collapse we saw with 1 & 2.

"Also the police car's dashboard camera only cuts out at the precise moment the man killed himself."

Funny how that *always* happens - the videotape that we are told would completely exonerate the police in these questionable circumstances just happens to go blank all by itself, or is 'accidentally erased while copying'.

A situation exactly like this Arkansas death happened to a kid (he was under 20, IIRC, although I don't remember his yearage exactly) in my city about 12 or 15 years ago. He was arrested (for suspicion of car theft I believe), searched twice, handcuffed behind his back, sat on the sidewalk, and somehow managed to produce a gun and shoot himself in the head in front of a dozen cops who apparently just stood there and watched the whole thing happen. This did not get nationwide media coverage at the time (although the local newspaper covered it at the time - something I doubt they would do today), which makes me wonder how common in-custody suspicious deaths like this there are in this country.

"I don't have an opinion on who's right here, only that it's wrong for us to jump to any conclusions."

If a criminal administered a beatdown on a police officer, cuffed him, and then claimed that the police officer somehow shot himself in the head, would you be speaking aloud of reconstruction videos and the necessity of withholding judgement until "all the facts are in"?

I believe that the autopsy showed that the bullet went from right to left and at a downward angle, which means that the gun had to be against his temple.

But Invictus, here is what you're missing. You said:

"I agree something stinks here really, really bad. It's just that the lawyers, judge(s), jurors, expert witnesses, etc are the ones who will figure out what really happened and decide what should happen to these officers."

The thing is, no, they won't. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Police brutality and criminality happens all the time. Some of the most egregious, like this or the Kelly Thomas case, will result in mild punishments or perhaps even a little jail time, but most of them don't and won't.

Put the shoe on the other foot: If you drove a cab with a video recorder, and they found a bound man with a bullet wound in his head, plus you gave a story that was highly improbable at best about the circumstances of the death, plus your camera just happened to be malfunctioning at the time of his death, what would the response be? I doubt it would be a "Well, we'll look in to this" from your dispatcher. You would be in jail, rightly.

If your response is, they're policemen and deserve the benefit of the doubt, then you're making my point. There is a double standard. There's very good evidence here that the police killed a man in custody. Not only is it doubtful that any of them will face prison time, but it's doubtful that there will even be a meaningful investigation. You can guarantee that there wouldn't be one if this story had stayed out of the public spotlight.

And we're not even talking about how stupid it is that the guy was in custody in the first place. One count of selling marijuana and a bogus forced drug deferment program perhaps cost this man his life.

Well, I think we've had this discussion before Draugnar. I didn't agree then, and I am likely to not agree in subsequent discussions. NIST's finding have been thoroughly disproved, and lots and lots of questions still remain. But, that is not even my main point on the issue. It is what evolved OUT of the tragedy that is my main concern. Whether is was manufacture or used, the event has marked a very grave and dangerous turning point in the history of our Republic.

Now *that* I agree with. I can logically explain the circumstances of how the towers collapsed from.the impact of two jet liners, but it has been used and abused to attack our freedoms and civil liberties way too much.

I would argue that logic isn't really the issue. But then, you have you view and I have mine. My point is, if we agree on the police state that have been fueled by 9-11 (USAPA, NDAA, etc.) why is that we cannot agree upon the fact that maybe, just maybe the architects of the draconian dismantling of our Republic, also were the architects of the collapses, in a literal sense? There are so many circumstantial issues, without discussion the actual WTC collapses, to point to something very sinister. I know it's hard to accept because it would mean that our Republic has been taken over from the inside by criminals, and that is a very scary thought indeed. But, I can come up with no other conclusion.

All things being equal, the simplest solution (that terrorists did a number of the WTC and on the Pentagon) is usually the correct one. Or, eliminate the impossible and whatever remains must be the truth.

I agree, terrorist DID bring down the WTC buildings. But, they weren't who we've been told they were, nor did the buildings come down in the manner we've been told they did. The simplist explanation doesn't include phenomena that had never happened before, nor since. We've all seen controlled demolitions of buildings on TV. The simplist explanation, upon watching the footage, is that we saw three that fateful day -- if never told anything about planes not terrorists, everyone would assume that they were brought down by design. The eyes tell you everything you need to know. I have eliminated the impossible, all that remains is demolition. Those that insist upon conjuring up arguments about jet fuel and such are the ones injecting impossibility into the discussion. Controlled demolitions are not impossible, as I said, we've all seen them and pretty much look just like what we saw on that day. Perfectly simultaneous failure of key structural members due to fire, not once, not twice, but thrice IS impossible.

What the fig tree....

MichiganMan, the logical connection between an individual (or even systematic!) example of what could either be police incompetence or even potentially murder and the type of conspiracy theories you allege daily is absolutely and irrevocably absent.

Notice that the possibility of a government being repressive, even being quite violent, in no way justifies the why and the how of the WTC being an inside job.

In fact, your concession that terrorists did hit the planes simultaneous to government designed controlled explosions is even more incredibly implausible and at odds with evidence. They coordinated with terrorists, getting the timing exactly right. The *government* managed to plant massive amounts of explosives in the World Trade Centre, somehow either managing to hide this from all the thousands of people that work there (or they were in on it) and managed to get thousands of scientists to agree that jet fuel poured down elevator shafts can weaken steel struts sufficiently.

Why the hell would such an all-powerful, incredibly dangerous but also incredibly subtle and sneaky organization desire or need to commit this atrocity? It apparently had all the tools to be an incredibly successful police state anyway.

This news story:

An example of a small, inept, government service, possibly a brutal and racist one.

The truther story:

An example of a massive government unmatched in its power, reach, its incredible malevolence and its incredible ability to escape detection and keep secrets. One with unclear motives, but insane amounts of resolve.

In any case, I agree that the patriot act, and other related examples of American state power and the reductions of liberty are bad and should be opposed.

But just as the 'rockets disguised with holograms' conspiracy theory is so crazy it undermines YOU and is probably seen as crazy by you, so too do I believe that truther conspiracies undermine a clear-headed analysis of why the expansion of executive power is an unmatched problem in modern American politics.

@MichMan - Do you have a degree in engineering? Do you know any architectrural, structural, or civil engineers? I know all three of these folks and spent the first part of my career developing engineering software and modeling worst case scenarios. You saw what you wanted to see and your opinion about what is possible and not possible is tainted by your desirte to see a conspiracy. It is *not* impossible that what they say happened actually happened. Only people unfamiliar with the physics of structural engineering would think it is. The design of those building was such so that if a catastrophic event happened, they would implode, as they did.

But you will be forever deceived and I won't discuss this any further as I don't feel like pounding my head on a rock.

Fine Draugnar, I disagree with you, but we can agree to disagree. I listen to people who are PE's and who have done extensive research and say what happened is not physically possible without controlled demolitions. As is always the case, there is conflicting data that is leading to conflicting conclusions. But, as is typical, someone whose view goes against the "official narrative" is told that their experts don't count. Those experts coming out against the official narrative are have nothing to gain and everything to lose, but yet they do it anyway. Why? Because their conscience tells them that something isn't right. I am not looking for conspiracies, I am wondering why there are so many experts who are coming against something that is supposed to be irrefutable. If am a conspiracy theorist, then you, et. al., are "coincidence theorists" who believe that people NEVER collude to advance an agenda, that events are simply random.

If you feel as if you're banging your head against a rock, maybe it's because you refuse to open your mind to other possibilities. You're so sure that you're right that any disagreement is lunacy to you. You, of all people, should understand that that is the essential goal of propaganda -- to marginalize any debate. You've bought right in. I am not saying that I am correct, just that there are some very weird things going on.

"An example of a massive government unmatched in its power, reach, its incredible malevolence and its incredible ability to escape detection and keep secrets. One with unclear motives, but insane amounts of resolve." So in this view the US government could swap places with the League of Shadows and no one would know the difference.

Statements like "jet planes bringing down the towers is impossible, only demolition could do that" (paraphrased) is you not saying you are right? Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, I did my own investigation through my contacts at GE and Parsons Engineering Science (I've developed engineering software for both and have jet engine, NDT, and architectural/civil engineers at both places as close friends) and seen how it works. You've read some published study which was incomplete and made poor assumptions (I've read all the truther info I can find and can point out the flaws myself without an engineering degree on everything I've read).

The only thing that stinks is the official story behind how the terrorists were here in the country and studying to fly planes and shit. *That* has the potential for a cover up, but our own government isn't good enough to cover up that big a secret even for a decade.

Dangermouse +1000000 for the Batman/Dark Knight reference.

Didn't NIST even admit that "free fall" cannot wouldn't occur under a normal collapse, there would be "crumpling."

What the hell do you mean by free fall. I saw crumpling and weight crushing down on each floor with a continually downward moving debris plume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3 4bGKnGxn0

At about 30 seconds into the first video we start to see the walls buckly slightly, At 40 seconds, one corner gives way right where the plane hit. That's when the stress on the other supports caused them to collapse and send the floors above the impact point crushing down on to the floors below. At this point we see debris fly outward floor by floor as can be seen in the second video.

Compare that to this demolition video of the New Frontier hotel demolition in Vegas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL9jAf9n0Yo


Notice how the demolition starts at the bottom and the walls fall down and inward but remain intact with the only debris plume coming from the ground level. This didn't start near the top like the WTC collapses.

Then there is the question of how anyone got the explosives planted on the key support members seemingly unnoticed by the people who were working there. These aren't little hideable "bombs" but big ass explosive packages attached at key support points which would have been obvious to anyone with a corner window.

But you go ahead and continue to believe that a rtop down collapse looks like a bottom up demolition...

ok, if say so. I thought you didn't want to talk about it.

if you say so, I meant.

Wow, it's almost like this thread was about 9/11 instead of a guy in Arkansas being killed

Just watch the videos and comare and see... that is what having a truly open mind is about. Deciding for yourself by understanding the science (maybe not in detail but generally) and doing the research yourself, not depending on someone else's lazy and sloppy work.

Ok, if you say so Draugnar.

@PE - Yeah, we got a bit sidetracked. and it';s ashame too because I believe there is something *way* fishy going on with that case. If it were LA, therew would be Rodney King-sized riots over it and rightfully so (now there is a real brain scratcher, how they got away with beating a subdued guy twitching from the stun guns being delivered to him and say he was resiting...)

Just to add something here, as both a Brit and Devil's Advocate...

Maybe this (the shooting, not 9/11) is a good reason why a) the general public shouldn't be allowed handguns, and following that, b) not all police should carry guns. There are far fewer shootings in the UK than in the US, and our handgun laws make a hell of a lot more sense...

@CaptDave - "A)" doesn't aplly because I seriously doubt this was a registered and legal handgun. Having gun control doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens only. And "B)" is unworkable in most cities (although might work in small towns and the country, can't say for certain what the incidence of hunting rifle versus police is in small town america). anyhow B is unworkable in the city because of gang violence with illegal firearms. you don't hear of the police having a shootout with a bankrobber using his legally registered handgun or the drug dealer with *his* legally registered handgun. Legal weapons are rarely the weapon used in violent confrontation. Sure, you get the occasional whack job who shoots up the mall, mosque, or movie theater and limiting access to their guns would stuff those newsmaking events. But it would also make it that much easier for the criminal element to increase their violence against the innocent because they would *know* the innocent were unarmed.

It is still possible to get illegal guns in the UK, Draug! So that doesn't really explain the incredibly large differential between the two countries. Although what might is that I think British gangs' weapons of choice tend to be metal and pointy, and rather less noisy than firearms.

My main point in this instance was more that there shouldn't really be a need for (general, obviously you still need armed teams) police to carry guns, and I'm pretty sure that there would be fewer illegal guns on the streets if there were fewer legal ones out there.

@CaptD - Fewer legal means fewer illegal... Possibly... Bu tthere is no evidence I have seen either way. And does Britain have the drug war issues the US has? Consider the drug trade in the two countries: The US has the major drug producing nations sharing common coastlines with itself (two main coastlines run up and down North, Central, and South america) so the drugs tend to flow here as they don't have to do a trans Atlantic journey. Hong Kong and the east have their own drug trade issues but that doesn't reach as far into Europe because smuggling across land can be tougher than a speed boat or small aircraft up a coast line. And the GB being an island nation means it is even harder for the Eastern drug trade to reach it. So GB doesn't have the drug issues we do. therefore, the violent turf wars over who sells drugs where and who supplies who are the modern day equivalent of Prohibition era gangster wars.

And, as I said, I can't speak for small town and backwoods America as I have lived in Greater Cincinnati most of my life and it is the 17th (I think) largest metropolitan area in the US, so we have the drugs and the requisite gang violence.

Now, if you have evidence that proves within reason that banning guns regionally reduced the illegal gun ownership as well, I'd love to see it. If it held up to scrutiny (like it wasn't talking about in a police state where soldier's with automatic weapons were on every corner), I would have to reevaluate my position.