The new and improved PRC
Web editor jailed for subversion -- Shanghai Daily | 上海日报 -- English Window to China News:
"A court statement said that in more than 60 articles, Zhang had slandered the government and China's social system to vent his discontent with the government."
For all the liberal apologists for the Chinese communists, I have one question. Since so much progress has been made, are you ready to go and live there now?
posted by J. Keen Holland @ 2:05 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I gave some serious thought to simply eliminating the comment above as it is not on topic. On the other hand, some of the material linked is interesting.
I looked at nearly all of it, although I did draw the line at sitting through two hours of Alex Jones' video.
Let me emphasize that I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the US government was complicit in the tragic events of 9/11.
Howwever, the official explanations of the mechanism of collapse of three WTC buildings, especially Building 7, are distinctly unconvincing. And I say that as one who originally found the official story of the collapse of the towers convincing and defended it to others.
For the safety of the many tens of thousands of Americans who live or work in highrise steel structures, we need to know for certain the mechanisms of building failure on 9/11 and what can be done to prevent such calamities in the future.
For the benefit of those not conversant with the elements of the controversy, here are three facts to consider:
(1) In over 100 years of building such structures, none - not one, not anywhere in the world - has failed solely due to fire. But Building 7 did.
(2) A manager at Underwriters Laboratories pointed out that the steel used to construct the WTC buildings had been tested and certified by UL to withstand longer and hotter fires than those on 9/11.
(3) An enginering professor from Brigham Young Universtity has written a lengthy paper debunking the official story.
Post a Comment
<< Home