Seattle area radio tower taken down by force.

dirtyfacedan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
394
Reaction score
74
Location
Duncan, Canada
All radio has the potential to cause cancer, and other complications in living creatures. Why someone chose this, i don't know..."Opponents have claimed that AM radio waves can harm people and wildlife." AM is simply a transmit mode, like FM, or SSB. Wattage is much more of a factor, as is the frequency, or part of the radio spectrum being transmitted on. Radar from airports, RF from WIFI, RF from TV, and hundreds of other users, as well as RF FROM CELL TOWERS and THE PHONES THEMSELVES and the relative position to the BRAIN when in use, and reproductive organs when not in use, are especially bad due to the relative frequency to MICROWAVE...a frequency that tends to COOK at even low RF LEVELS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health ). There are billions of RF sources all around us at this very moment, and AM radio is the least of our worries. RF occurs naturally from the sun, and space as well. Someone has claimed it was ELF who did it, but who knows. Anyways, here is the article. ( if I was to destroy an antenna tower, or array...HAARP would be my start). Radio is a tool, and has the potential for abuse (as we see in much of the world), and the potential for good, and to help mankind.

ELF claims it toppled Snohomish radio towers | Top Stories | Seattle News, Local News, Breaking News, Weather | KING5.com


NEAR SNOHOMISH, Wash. – The eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front is taking credit for toppling two radio towers that have been the subject of years of controversy and legal battles.

Now, the FBI is investigating the Friday morning vandalism and the owner of the towers is offering a $25,000 reward.

The towers, owned by station KRKO and known as North Sound 1380, were located on Short School Road and 129th Street Southeast near Snohomish.

"What they used was a machine called an excavator. It has a front arm off the front end of the machine. They stole it out of the yard," Andy Skotdal, president and general manager of KRKO. "They went and attached it to the tower and pushed one of them over and pulled the other one down."

A sign left at the scene said the ELF was responsible. The FBI says it has found no indication that any other groups are involved.

"When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet,” said Jason Crawford, spokesperson for the North American ELF press office.

Skotdal still isn't convinced the ELF is responsible.

"I think it's way too early to jump to any conclusions about who really is responsible for this," said Skotdal.

A radio tower owned by station KRKO, lies on its side after being toppled by vandals.

KRKO is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

The towers have been at the center of controversy for years. Opponents have claimed that AM radio waves can harm people and wildlife. More recently, nearby residents claim radio signals coming over home phone and intercom lines have increased since KRKO recently boosted its broadcasting power.

When KRKO announced plans to build the towers nine years ago, neighbors like Mark Craven were furious.

"The radio towers were not good for the people that lived around us. They were not a good fit," said Craven, who runs a tourist farm and pumpkin patch near the towers.

A sign reading 'WASSUP SNO CITY? ELFM can be seen through the fog at the site of two Everett, WA radio towers toppled by vandals.

Three times, a hearing examiner recommended the towers not be built because of the view and health concerns. But in the end, the county council sided with the radio station and they went up.

"This is a sad way to get their attention, but maybe it will get their attention and maybe something will happen," said Craven.

Neighbors who spoke out during the fight to prevent the towers from being built say they don’t support the vandalism.

"We don't want them, but this is not the way to see them go,” said Lee Bennett.

There are four towers currently at the location and there have been plans to build two more towers. Skotdal says it will take at least three months to rebuild the vandalized towers. The station is still broadcasting on a backup transmitter.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Is it just me or are the elf guys missing one small little point ? If your hand is on the stove and it's burning it.......take your hand off the stove ! Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.

Remember the movie 28 days later ? When some fruitcakes break into some research facility and releases the rage virus that later kills everyone ? What if it's ebola ? (a real virus, and real nasty) When some fruitcakes break into a facility working on finding a vaccine against ebola ? That virus (ebola) released into a major population center will kill 80% or more of the people that contracts it just days after contracting it. 80% of our people can die in just a few weeks. No zombies, your guts just turn into soup and you die.

I've done my fair share of damage when I was a kid to similar equipment. (statute of limitations has long past) So I'm not one to talk. But that was just it, when I was selfish, ignorant and just a total turd. I hope these elf guys aren't adults.
 

jdrakeh

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
This puts these particular ELF members in the same category of Stupid as clueless black bloc protestors who think that throwing bricks through the front glass of a Wal-Mart store is going to topple capitalism. Real results require real action, not petty vandalism.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
It's the idea and the method behind it. Read the article, those towers were a legal battleground. When they couldn't get their way they acted like kids and IMPOSED what they wanted on others with force. (toppling the towers)

What's the difference between them and say the KKK, or muslim terrorists ? They all use force when they don't get their way.

Use of force are for mental midgets that can't use reason to support their position properly. Cops use force, need I say more ?
 

macks

Ballsy Adventurer
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
484
Reaction score
35
Website
macksemil.wordpress.com
The difference between the groups is the difference between violating the rights of people and property crimes. To my knowledge no ELF action has intentionally harmed a human being. (If you know a case where this isn't true please share it) The KKK and ELF are totally different on many levels.

The article also says that there was strong opposition to the towers in the community but the city council eventually sided with the radio company. Perhaps the city council did not represent the needs of the community but their own interests. Of course I don't know if that is true or not (and in this case the article makes it seem like the community at large doesn't support the towers or the removal of them), but don't be so quick to condemn other peoples' actions when you don't know much about the situation. The news only tells one version of the story..

If you're all for industrial expansion and radio towers on every hilltop I guess we can't really continue this conversation because I won't be able to understand your point of view. But if you want to talk about the different ways of accomplishing the same goal and how effective they are, by all means. I agree this kind of thing isn't going to save the world, but at least it's a change, a small hitch in a giant deathmarch to our self destruction.

Kind of playing devil's advocate here for the sake of conversation since this is something I think about a lot and go back and forth on.
 

jdrakeh

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
rememberusername said:
. . . but I don't think these people believe they just started the crumbling needed for the "revolution"

Sadly, that very accurately describes a large majority of Black Bloc participants I have known.
 

LovelyAcorns

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
119
Reaction score
20
Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.
You're right. They could easily go live out in the middle of desert.

some fruitcakes
Kill yourself.
What if it's ebola ?
How about this: stop injecting animals with ebola. You don't get to claim innocence when you created the hostage situation. Though I do love how you go and on about force and then you use animal research as one of your comparison (with the other being zombies).

some fruitcakes
Once again, consider suicide.

What's the difference between them and say the KKK
Really now? You can't find any differences? You're not just throwing that in because its emotionally charged?

Use of force are for mental midgets
I'm really hoping you are a hipster trying to use irony.

Cops use force, need I say more ?
Logical fallacy, cops also wear blue clothes. "Force" is a meaningless word when taken out of context.



Woohoo to the action. AM waves aren't exactly my greatest fear, but we could probably do without. I'm more excited by the damage to a media outlet. When zombie movies become a valid reference point for political arguments, you know something needs to be done.
I'm a little confused by this line though:
What they used was a machine called an excavator.
Is excavator really outside most people's vocabulary?
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Lovely Acorns

Since you are so quick to tell me to kill myself I'll tell you this. I'll kill you before I'll kill myself.

You sure used the word KILL awfully quick. Nobody else even mentioned that word before you did. Don't you think that is a little severe ? Just a tad ?
 

LovelyAcorns

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
119
Reaction score
20
Lovely Acorns

Since you are so quick to tell me to kill myself I'll tell you this. I'll kill you before I'll kill myself.

You sure used the word KILL awfully quick. Nobody else even mentioned that word before you did. Don't you think that is a little severe ? Just a tad ?


Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.

I fail to see why I'm only allowed to use words that have already been said. And yes, it was a little severe, but as long pretentious privileged (more new words! Wow!) fuckers like you feel comfortable using fruitcake as an insult, I'm going to being advocating severe viewpoints.



And rememberusername, I love you. There's a certain eccentricity in your posts that I fabulous.
 

finn

Playground Monitor
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
218
Okay, arguments that come out of "I saw this science fiction movie where..." are not valid arguments. I mean the whole torture thing was justified by a fictional TV series character named Jack Bauer, and that hasn't helped anyone except for the FOX network. The people who live there don't want it there because of health concerns, so destroying it is fine by me. Maybe I should say killing it.

Don't want to be too slow in using that word. And I'd rather someone use force than the passive aggressive behavior that cowards use.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Force is used by idiots that can't reason. When you reason people usually understand and agree. As an example the green movement. When it was done by idiots before nobody paid attention. When sane people used reason to support their position people agreed. Now it has become mainstream and far more effective.

Using the word kill is never a good idea. Even if you intend to do something bad. Besides, some people are close to the edge already. Threatening someone or even the perception of threat would push them over the edge. Who wins then ? The dead guy or the guy in prison ?
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.

I fail to see why I'm only allowed to use words that have already been said. And yes, it was a little severe, but as long pretentious privileged (more new words! Wow!) fuckers like you feel comfortable using fruitcake as an insult, I'm going to being advocating severe viewpoints.



And rememberusername, I love you. There's a certain eccentricity in your posts that I fabulous.

Yeah you are a fucking idiot. Don't put your own hangups on other people's posts. I used fruitcake as a term used for people that can't think straight or behave sanely.

I've gone to sacramento to protest prop 8 at the capitol. I am active in the LGBT community here in support of gay rights, and I'm straight.

You are going to tell me to kill myself just because I disagree with you ? You've got some SERIOUS MENTAL DEFECTS.
 

finn

Playground Monitor
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
218
Hartage, you've obviously never been out on the streets or stepped up in defense of a friend in order to be such a pacifist.

Oh, I noticed you added some new messages for LovelyAcorns. If you're an LGBT ally, you know better than to use the insult fruitcake. It doesn't matter how many rallies you go to, or how active you are in your community, you are insulting people because they think queer (i.e. they don't think straight). And then you go onto midgets, as in mental midgets. I could go on, but instead I'm going to ask you to stop these insults or I will do something to stop it. (nonviolently I might add!) Notice that you are the only one throwing insults here.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Hartage, you've obviously never been out on the streets or stepped up in defense of a friend in order to be such a pacifist.

Oh, I noticed you added some new messages for LovelyAcorns. If you're an LGBT ally, you know better than to use the insult fruitcake. It doesn't matter how many rallies you go to, or how active you are in your community, you are insulting people because they think queer (i.e. they don't think straight). And then you go onto midgets, as in mental midgets. I could go on, but instead I'm going to ask you to stop these insults or I will do something to stop it. (nonviolently I might add!) Notice that you are the only one throwing insults here.

I didn't use fruitcake as a term to refer to gays. I support gay rights. No I don't just go to the rally I'm part of organizing it, getting word out. Rally helps, shows opinion and support. What do you think would happen if instead of just rallying we burnt the place down ? One helps, the other is just stupidity.

Fruitcake does not even come to my mind as anything refering to gay at all. I use it to refer to people that impose their will to others with force. How is it other people's hangups get pinned on me ?

Pacifist ? I am far from a pacifist. I just understand the proper use of force. Applied in a wrong manner it does far more harm than good.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.


Oh and just to clarify. That was no death threat, that would be too much like you and I'm not like you. What I said was to say the likely hood of me killing myself is next to zero. I'd do that to you before I'd do that to myself. And no I wouldn't do that to you either as I dislike prison. So no not a threat. Read the words carefully before you jump to assumptions.
 

macks

Ballsy Adventurer
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
484
Reaction score
35
Website
macksemil.wordpress.com
Force is used by idiots that can't reason. When you reason people usually understand and agree. As an example the green movement. When it was done by idiots before nobody paid attention. When sane people used reason to support their position people agreed. Now it has become mainstream and far more effective.

Can you back any of this up by anything but your own opnion? You're throwing around some harsh words with no support. Maybe what has been tried and failed at before was a necessary step to create a more effective movement. And how effective is this new green movement anyway? In order to answer this question you have to ask what they want to accomplish. If the answer is lots of new products that are marketable to a new consumer group that wants to feel better about killing the planet then yes, it is very effective. I'm not convinced that adressing the tough issues that would lead to a real decline in the rate that we're destroying our enviornment is really at the forefront of the new 'green' movement. At least not in practice.


It would be sweet if we could talk more about the radio tower thing..

Here's another article:
The Associated Press: 2 radio towers in Washington state toppled


Seems to me like the science isn't really compelling for their argument, but hey kudos for doing something! I wonder if the owners' insurance will cover the new one.
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Can you back any of this up by anything but your own opnion? You're throwing around some harsh words with no support. Maybe what has been tried and failed at before was a necessary step to create a more effective movement. And how effective is this new green movement anyway? In order to answer this question you have to ask what they want to accomplish. If the answer is lots of new products that are marketable to a new consumer group that wants to feel better about killing the planet then yes, it is very effective. I'm not convinced that adressing the tough issues that would lead to a real decline in the rate that we're destroying our enviornment is really at the forefront of the new 'green' movement. At least not in practice.


It would be sweet if we could talk more about the radio tower thing..

Here's another article:
The Associated Press: 2 radio towers in Washington state toppled


Seems to me like the science isn't really compelling for their argument, but hey kudos for doing something! I wonder if the owners' insurance will cover the new one.

When something is fringe a few thousand people do it the net effect is very small. When it goes main stream even small things become mountains. As an example lead. A while back the only people that knew lead was bad were health workers and lead industry workers. The amount of lead going into our environment through paint, gasoline and other ways were hundreds of tons a year. Lead being a problem and the opinion of not using it has gone mainstream a while back. Now there is no lead in paint or gasoline. The tonnage of lead released into the environment has reduced significantly.

Knocking down a couple of towers won't do squat in the grand scheme of things. It will however damage the position of those that are trying to use reason to convince the masses. It takes masses of people to do world wide damage. It will take the masses to repair it. Reputation, opinion and reason are far more effective than violence or force in convincing the masses.
 

veggieguy12

The Captain
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
732
Reaction score
139
Location
around the USA
hartage said:
Is it just me or are the elf guys missing one small little point ? If your hand is on the stove and it's burning it.......take your hand off the stove ! Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.

Yes, it's just you, or perhaps not only you, but indeed you are totally missing the point.
The tower makers and the courts and the police are indeed forcing people to be around radio antennae, and billboards, and highways, and power substations, etc.
Imagine someone making this argument: "Is it just me, or are the Navajo missing the point? Nobody's forcing them to stay on the land that the US Cavalry wants, in fact they're trying to remove them. The natives' use of force is for mental midgets; the Indians should just argue their case in a US court."
As you must know, this system is not geared to hear all parties equally, nor give all sides equal or fair regard. This system is insane, destroying the very landbase upon which we all depend.
Your comments show that you don't realize that the US Government is a government of occupation, and that Civilization is committing a holocaust of the planet.

hartage said:
...those towers were a legal battleground. When they couldn't get their way they acted like kids and IMPOSED what they wanted on others with force. (toppling the towers)
...Use of force are for mental midgets that can't use reason to support their position properly.

Your assertion here supposes 1) that the Law ("legal battleground" as you call it) is not ultimately backed by force - which is completely false, and I'll bet that you can see this if you try; and 2) that mere reason and rational debate can be had and that the best argument will prevail. Do you really believe that?
 

hartage

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
134
Reaction score
15
Location
southern cal
Yes, it's just you, or perhaps not only you, but indeed you are totally missing the point.
The tower makers and the courts and the police are indeed forcing people to be around radio antennae, and billboards, and highways, and power substations, etc.
Imagine someone making this argument: "Is it just me, or are the Navajo missing the point? Nobody's forcing them to stay on the land that the US Cavalry wants, in fact they're trying to remove them. The natives' use of force is for mental midgets; the Indians should just argue their case in a US court."
As you must know, this system is not geared to hear all parties equally, nor give all sides equal or fair regard. This system is insane, destroying the very landbase upon which we all depend.
Your comments show that you don't realize that the US Government is a government of occupation, and that Civilization is committing a holocaust of the planet.



Your assertion here supposes 1) that the Law ("legal battleground" as you call it) is not ultimately backed by force - which is completely false, and I'll bet that you can see this if you try; and 2) that mere reason and rational debate can be had and that the best argument will prevail. Do you really believe that?

Since you used the navajo as an example......

Look what happened when they used force ? What was being done was wrong but them using force ended with them being slaughtered. Today the indians use the court system and they have abilities most others don't have. (to gamble on their own land) They are acheiving much more success with equality when they DON'T take up arms or use force.

I do see your point. And we are both on the same side. Except the methods used to acheive the goal we both want.
 

About us

  • Squat the Planet is the world's largest social network for misfit travelers. Join our community of do-it-yourself nomads and learn how to explore the world by any means necessary.

    More Info

Latest Library Uploads