[Powderworks] Why I called that post 'garbage'...
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:02:06 -0600 (MDT)
After the second plane knifed into the second tower, there was a huge
fireball eminating from the second tower. The news program I was
watching managed to find someone who was on the ground at the time it
happened, and asked them to describe what they saw. Their words were
essentially (I didn't record it) the same...they saw an enormous
fireball emanating from beneath the tower.
I am taking a class in Natural Language Processing (and have taken a
couple of linguistics classes). This causes me to analyze the
sentence more than usual. So the question is, how do we parse the
sentence? Does the phrase "beneath one of the towers" attach to the
person who was doing the viewing? Or does it attach to the fireball?
I believe, in light of what I saw, other people saw, and what the
witness on the news saw, that the phrase attaches to the viewer, and
has been taken out of context to use like foxy-loxy would...promote
ones own views, get people scared, and get people paranoid.
<Subconscious message> watch a movie called Arlington
Road</subconscious message>. These are the same tacky tactics used by
the people who raised the price of gas in response to the attacks.
}And so who actually caused this attack? This is the most preposterous
}part of the whole piece. Here's what is provided as proof - "These
}secondary blasts were acknowledged early in the day by an NBC newsman."
}and "A radio broadcaster on WLS in Chicago (according to a
}correspondent), whose wife is a CBS journalist who was on the scene at
}the towers, said on the air that his wife had witnessed an enormous
}fireball emanating from beneath one of the towers..." That's it. An
}unnamed reporter and some guy who heard something from some his wife -
}no names, no way to verify what he's claiming. Indeed, the very fact
}that they aren't better covered is claimed as evidence that it happened,
}as is so often the case with these kind of theories. On these grounds,
}the premise of 'The Matrix' could also be proven to be true. (Hey,
}maybe it is, but what I mean is in the absence of evidence why SHOULD I