Messages

Okay, so I talked to my doctor again today.  I'm going to start taking Citalopram.  Anybody here know anything about?  I've been researching it, and I guess I'm comfortable with taking it. 

I'm only going to be taking it for about six to twelve months, on a very low dose. 

Well, until medication was the only answer.

I was prescribed medication for my anxiety on my last doctor visit, but am afraid to take it due to fears of having an allergic reaction, becoming dependent, etc... 

I don't really know if I should.  I want to talk about it more before I take it.  Maybe a different approach would be better, rather than just going to pills right off the start.

What you are describing Raggit is less OCD and more Thantophobia, a fear of anything that could result in your death.Ã,  If it was restricted only to diseases and physical ailments I would suggest it to be hypochondria (what I have), but as you've explained a fear of microwave fumes it goes beyond that.Ã,  Granted, you may have OCD along with Thantophobia, but your descriptions seem to indicate an exaggerated and unrealistic fear of dying.Ã,  Ã, In my case, education about diseases and their actual behavior tends to help rather than hurt, but for some people it is the opposite.

With just Thantophobia itself, would the anxiety pass after realizing I have no real symptoms, or would it continue to gnaw at me?Ã,  I think that's where my OCD comes in, I cannot shake the feeling that I'm about to die or some other nonsense.Ã, 

Sometimes studying diseases helps me, sometimes it does not and only makes it worse.Ã,  But I'd rather know too much than not enough.

lgm,

Did it go in cycles?  Like you'd worry for a few monthes, then it'd clear up and come back later?  Or did you mean you had it for just a month and that's it. 

I have it in cycles. 

I'm thinking I have OCD.   I know it runs in my family.  I was fortunate enough to come across a book called "Brain Lock."

It's an amazing book about OCD and a self-directed four step therapy that is helping me:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060987111/102-6738349-4341744?v=glance&n=283155



Anyway, I got so freaked out last night about that microwave, I dialed poison control to ask them about the odors.  To my relief, they said it wasn't dangerous, but might make you a little sick to your stomach if you breath it too much.   

After that, I started having difficulty sleeping due to a fear that I  would quit breathing.  (Amazingly, I'm not making this up.)

I just developed a new worry this evening.  Our microwave just blew up (not literarly) and now the kitchen has that burnt-electrical-stuff oder in it. 

To all you electrical buffs out there, is this odor harmful to breath?

Do you worry constantly?Ã,  Is your mind filled with "what if" questions?Ã,  What are your fears?

Share your anxiety here, what you've dealt with, how you got over it, etc.Ã,  Nothing is too trivial to post about.Ã, 

I'll start:

I know I worry and obsess about things too much.Ã,  For instance, I recently came down with a tonsil infection.Ã,  As soon as my throat started to hurt, the first thing in my mind was, "Oh no, it's cancer!"Ã, 

Once I got the fever, I knew it wasn't cancer, but then I started worrying about my tonsils swelling up so bad as to block my airway.Ã,  (Yes, I realize how uncommon that is.)

I went to the doctor, who prescribed antibiotics.Ã,  I got home, and started reading about it on the internet, and became afraid to take the medication, due to fears of having some rare allergic reaction.Ã, 

That's the sort of pattern I get into.Ã,  I start worrying about one thing, and then it just leads to another and another.Ã,  The worst part is that often my anxiety will create certain symptoms, such as upset stomach, fast heartrate, and shakiness, causing me to believe that something really IS going wrong.Ã,  A vicious cycle. 
(Then I start to worry that I worry too much.)

So, what's bothering you?

I dunno about the timelord thing, but the fact that nobody recognized him is definately something to think about.  Something I hadn't previously thought about before.

I predict major discussion coming...

I got a PM too.

I guess he picked the users who have the dirtiest sound names.   

What an idiot.

BTW, my count is fine.

Interesting talk going around about the privatization of the internet by the communications companies, and the end of what they call Network Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality), which disallows ISPs from deciding FOR you what you can view and what you cannot.Ã, 

From what I understand, this wouldn't be based on morals, politics, or anything like that, but more on which sites PAY the most money to those service companies.

http://www.savetheinternet.com

The above site has a lot of informative and interesting stuff to read.Ã,  You might want to swing by and sign their petition, which will also send a letter to your state representatives, urging them to vote in favor of Network Neutrality.

If you like to surf the internet freely, this is definately something to keep an eye on.Ã,  I don't have to tell you what will happen if a handful of companies are allowed to take full control of your internet access.Ã,  *GASP* This could even mean the end of the AGS network!Ã,  Ã, 

Eric, sorry about missing that post.

Why not kill Valerie Wilson?
First of all, bear in mind that she was not directly connected with the scenario.  Her husband, Joe Wilson, was the one who determined that the Iraq couldn't have purchased uranium from Africa, and he was criticizing the administration's use of intelligence.  They tried to punish Joe Wilson by destroying his wife's career, and by the way, putting her mission and even her life in danger. 

So in one since, you could look at it as though they WERE trying to kill her by releasing her identity, but they were taking a safer route by just trying to put her in danger, and not actually have her blood directly on their hands.

As to the question, why not kill anybody and everybody who opposes the administration:  You answered your own question in the original post.  People WOULD notice. 
A lot of times, I think things can be kept secret just by controlling the media.

Actually, there IS footage of whatever happened to the impact.  It was confiscated immediately by the FBI.  I can think of at least three different videos that were confiscated.

1.)  Security camera footage from the gas station across the highway.

2.) The Sheraton hotel rooftop camera.  The employees actually managed to watch the tape, just before the FBI took it.  They were warned not to talk.

3.) The DOT cameras on the highway would've taped what happened, but it has never been released.

Mr. Colossal, what questions did I skip?

I'm not sure how I feel about being labeled a conspiracy theorist.Ã,  Is anybody who doubts anything automatically a conspiracy theorist?Ã, 

Anyway, maybe this is my fault, for not making this clear, but just incase I didn't mention this before: I don't automatically ASSUME that the events of 9/11 were DEFINATELY a hoax committed by the government just to create a pass key for whatever ambitions they had.Ã,  I just think that since this is such a massive and complex event, with so many unanswered questions, it should be scrutinized from all angles.

There are numerous holes in the current conspiracy theories circulating about 9/11, and I try to be equally critical about those as I am the official story.

However, I also see numerous holes in the official explanation for 9/11 as well.

This is one of those things that we may never know exactly what happened.Ã,  Possibly, only our great, great grandchildren will know for certain!Ã, 

I myself have no problem believing that our government would kill thousands (even Americans) if they thought they could benefit.Ã,  I mean, look at the war in Iraq!Ã,  They've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 2300 American troops, but they don't care, as long as there is still oil to be harvested.

Given the name "911 planed by US government," I thought this would be an open discussion, but I can see that folks are very skittish of the idea that 9/11 wasn't what it looked like, and what the media and government IMMEDIATELY started saying it was.

EDIT:

By the way, in regards to what Helm said about being overly assured in my mannerism, I guess I should apologize for that, too.  Personally, I didn't think I was in acting in such a way, but if I was, sorry.

...the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, 

Um...yes they did. That is a simple fact.

The Feul from the planes saturated the floors that they hit.

Proof?

I am familiar with the non-conspiracy explanations for the collapse of the towers, such as the "pancake effect," or whatever they called it. 
After 9/11, I was acceptiong of ANY explanation, just because I was shocked.  I believed every word Bush spoke, and supported him fully.  But as the trauma from 9/11 wore off, I began to think for myself, and I realized that maybe he wasn't everything he said he was.  Once I started looking into these things, it just started getting deeper and deeper, and more complex. 

Where I stand today is a far cry from the "We just need to support our president no matter what" stance I used to hold.

As for those involved in the cover up, they're either benificiaries of the scheme, and have no reason to reveal information, or they are blackmailed, discredited and forced to be quiet.
I would cite Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame as examples of the depths the White House will sink to in order to shut people up who know too much.

So then, did we land on the moon?

It's very likely, in my mind.  I've not studied the conspiracy theories behind the moon landing, and what motivations we would've had to fake it.

I don't have any doubts about it myself. 

Radiant, my point was the bulk of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, The towers were over-engineered, and I believe the creators specified that even if two of the main support columns were entirely cut, the towers still would've stood.

The trade center buildings had well over 1000 times the mass of the aircrafts that hit them, and were built to withstand high wind loads of 30 times the aircraft's weight.
The buildings would've easily absorbed whatever energy and shock was produced by the initial impact. Ã, 

It is interesting to note that none of the steel from the wreckage of the towers was tested or studied to see what caused it to fail. Ã, The towers were allegedly built with very high-intregrity steel, which would've have easily survived the heat. Ã, If these two buildings were the first in history to entirely collapse due to melting steel, you'd think that'd be worth investigating.

Mr. Colossal:

I didn't say the towers DIDN'T collapse at all, I said I didn't think they collapsed for the reasons given in the official explanation. 

As for demolition:  Here are three sources for two experts, as well as one ABC news anchor (not as relevant) discussing the collapse of the towers, including their future retractions, which should raise some suspicion:
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

I would encourage you to look at any footage of the trade centers collapsing.  The towers just seem to slide into the earth, as if they were sitting on top of a massive hole in the ground, and somebody just pulled the foundation right out from under them.
This is characteristic of any controlled demolition.  It's very smooth, very quick.

Again, if the frame of the structure gave way because of melting steel, the whole building wouldn't have just fell in on itself, only the affected floors would fall away, and I would expect more of a crumbling effect.  I probably don't need to point out that Windsor tower in Madrid burned for nearly 24 hours, and lost only a piece of the upper floors where the fire was. 

The eyewitnesses and firefighters that survived described multiple explosions, some of which actually blew them against the wall, etc.  They all believed that there were bombs planted throughout the building.  Eye witnesses on the outside said they saw several bright, quick flashes, with audible explosions as the towers fell.  Some video footage contain these flashes. 

Finally, most of all, I'd suggest looking into what happened to building 7.  No airplane hit that one, and it fell straight down like the other two.  Larry Silverstein, who said he gave the command to "pull it."  Which means "demolish."  Look
here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

Now the big question of "WHY"

I think the quick answer is, of course, leverage.  But there's more to it than just creating a quick tragedy to create an enemy with.  If 9/11 was a strategy of our government, it was to gain control of the CITIZENS of this country. 
It wasn't intended to serve as an excuse to invade Iraq.  The Iraq plan existed long before Bush even took office.  (See New American Century letter to Bill Clinton.)

9/11 is considered the worst attack ever on American soil.  Because of the intense fear and trauma that gripped the nation after 9/11, the government was able to get the PATRIOT Act passed, which had previously been turned down by congress because it was too sweeping and unconstitutional. 

Even now, Bush and his gang are STILL using 9/11 to manipulate people and to justify their actions.  Look what happens whenever people question Bush about the war.  All he has to do is mention 9/11 and terrorism, and people shut up. 

So, in the eyes of the government, 9/11 was the ultimate pass key to everything they ever wanted to do, and they will continue to use it to get what they want. 

That's why they would've allowed it to happen. 

The issue here is that there are more questions than answers for 9/11.  Of course the government isn't talking.  All they can do is point fingers at Osama bin Laden, who, by the way, hasn't been caught yet.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact from
jetliner(s), such as those that hit the buildings that day. 

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them.  I could accept it if just the upper portions of the building gave way, but for both of them to fall straight down like that... too incredible. 

The controlled demolition idea makes sense to me, and is evidenced by what eye witnesses, firefighters, video footage, and experts repeatedly described.  And seeing that Trade Center 7 WAS destroyed with demolition, and given the fact that it fell in the exact same manner as the twin towers, it seems to make sense.  Oh yes, and the massive insurance benifit that Larry Silverstein stood to gain.

I can't say that the government fully orchestrated the events of 9/11, because there just isn't enough evidence yet.  But 9/11 was, at very least, ALLOWED to happen by the government. 

And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

In the USA we try to understand that dissenting from our elected leader is NOT dissenting from our country.Ã,  It is in no way unpatriotic to disagree and even publicly ridicule the President.

I wish more people recognized that, but it seems that more and more people will lable you a traitor, or terrorist sympathizer if you don't bow down to the will of the President.

But, as the very famous quote from Thomas Jefferson goes, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

I watched the whole thing.  It was spectacular!  It's what I've been wanting to see happen for years, but never has until now.
I think that Press Secretary audition tape was hilarious!

Cheers to ya, Colbert!

Just two words:

Tourette's Guy:
http://www.tourettesguy.com/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=12&Itemid=27

(WARNING: LOTS AND LOTS OF ADULT LANGUAGE!)