Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (107778)	6/7/2007 1:41:47 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362801

"Building #7 was damaged by debris and held up for many hours before the heat of internal fires, fueled by diesel fuel and unable to be fully controlled because of equipment, water and manpower shortages, weakened the steel structural members to the point where collapse was inevitable." How'd the diesel fuel get in there?

To: cirrus who wrote (107778)	6/7/2007 1:51:46 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362801

Putin’s Popularity Russian Voters Crave Stability and Security, Which Is Why Vladimir Putin’s Quasi-Authoritarian System Continues To Score An Enviable Approval Rating by Dilip Hiro Russian president, Vladimir Putin’s threat to point his military’s nuclear missiles at European cities if US president, George Bush, extends the present California-Alaska anti-missile defence line to Poland and the Czech Republic, is the latest example of the Kremlin’s growing confidence. Putin’s stance stems from two sources: the soaring wealth being created by the extraction of Russia’s enormous hydrocarbon reserves, and the continuing popularity he is enjoying among Russians, who are putting a high premium on security and showing scant interest in the rights to free expression and association. Two years ago, Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer. With petroleum prices rising fivefold between 1998 and now, and the Putin administration effectively renationalising the oil and gas industry, the Kremlin’s treasury is overflowing with cash. By now, Russia has paid off its foreign loans. Its foreign exchange reserves are nearing $300bn. In the words of the Russian deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s resurgence as a great power is underscored by “sovereign democracy, a strong economy and military might”. Ivanov’s reference to “democracy” and Putin’s description of himself as “a pure and absolute democrat” in his latest interview to selected journalists from the other members of the G8 have been greeted with guffaws in western capitals. There are unmistakable signs of the Kremlin curtailing the citizens’ rights of free expression and association. But, as yet, there is little sign of popular resistance to this policy. The reasons can be deduced from the results of a wide-scale public opinion survey conducted by the respected Yuri-Levada Institute for the independent EU-Russia Centre in Brussels, and published in late February. The poll showed that 35% want to return to the Soviet system, 26% think Putin’s quasi-authoritarian system is more suitable for Russia, and only 16% want western style democracy. Almost two thirds of the respondents prefer a strong state assuring security to citizens to a liberal state committed to upholding liberties. Instead of favouring separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, they want an overarching state authority to coordinate the institutions of national power. When choosing their priorities, 68% ticked “security”, 64% “housing”; and only 18% “free expression” with a measly 4% “free association”. As for national identity, 75% think of Russia “as a Eurasian state with its own path of development” whereas only 10% consider Russia as “part of the west with a vocation to move closer to Europe and America”. While 58% of the respondents regard America as an unfriendly country, 45% think of the European Union “as a menace to Russia’s political independence”, and a threat to its financial and economic independence, and intent on imposing “its foreign culture on Russia”. Popular opinion in the west holds that Russian President Boris Yeltsin ushered a new dawn in Russia with democracy and free market. This runs contrary to the prevalent perception in the Russian Federation. Most Russians associate the Yeltsin presidency with the debilitating loss of a welfare state, high unemployment and inflation, mass pauperisation and gross inequality. They find that Putin’s rule has restored a social order of rules and regulation, and provided them with security and predictability. The post-Soviet constitution, with its provisions for regular elections for the president and parliament, remains intact. So far, there has been no formal move to amend it to provide Putin with an extension beyond the two consecutive terms of four years. Though the regime changes in the Soviet Union, and in Iraq, came about through widely different routes - a sudden internal breakdown of the political system in the Soviet Union, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship by the invading Anglo-American forces - the end-result has certain common points. In both cases, the disappearance of the ancient regime led to a wild dislocation of society, with chaos and mayhem becoming the rule in Iraq. While the dazed citizenry exercised the right to vote in both cases, it craves security and stability that were the norm under the earlier social order which was anything but democratic. Little wonder that, seven years into his presidency, Putin continues to score an approval rating of 70% plus, a figure that makes western leaders green with envy. Published on Thursday, June 7, 2007 by The Guardian/UK

To: cirrus who wrote (107778)	6/7/2007 2:37:22 PM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362801

I have read now probably 20 documents from totally credible sources that refute virtually everything you say. starting with comments from the original architects about the design specs (designed to be able to be hit by a 4 engine Boeing 707 jetliner) and through the whole subject, but if you want to maintain your view, I am not going to argue you out of it. In the previous history of the world, prior to 9/11 NO buildings of similar structure EVER fell down, some of them burning at high temperatures for as much as 24 hours. On 9/11 TWO fell down at speeds very close to absolute gravity, after suffering damages from planes that by any serious measurement were unable to achieve the task since the jet fuel burned off very quickly. Further, the explosions in the basements of the two buildings were obviously not caused by planes dozens of stories above. Then WTC7 fell down at speeds close to absolute gravity after suffering damages totally inadequate to the task and explained by the owner as having been "pulled". How do you do a controlled demolition of a building if it has not already been prepared for the task? But if you want to believe the Government Sanctioned Conspiracy Theory in the Official Report, be my guest. We still have the right to choose our own fiction reading. Namaste! Jim