oh.. i thought building 7 WASN'T a controlled demolition.

You conspiracy guys should just colaberate on a sci fi book and listen to more Ministry. When you finally do make some kind of break through use some kind of blood test to prove that one another are not lizard people in disguise and then post it on this website under all your diffrent screen names. I'm sure you will find someone to take you seriously.

 

I genuinly don't think your intentions are to post something with bias.
"bias" is such a dirty word, so I apologise for using that word.
A clear unadulterated link to the actual Patriot act is with by default coming from the horses mouth. IMO this is the only way we can begin to discuss it. Not either one of our interpretations of it. The mere fact that you have posted your opinion on it, has to include your own prejudices. I'm just saying post the darn Patriot Act, rather than your view on it. Regardless of if you are right or wrong.

 

Skeptic's Mag is yellow journalism, and the articles themselves are very egotistically written.

The articles don't come across egotistical to me. The author doesn't dumb down his article to the level of a four year old child as does nearly all television media in the US. But if some do come across as egotistical, you might want to note that many of the participants are world-renowned scientists and researchers at some of the most presigious institutions in human history.

Their articles rarely ever present facts

Science isn't so concerned with calling things "facts." Science is all about making testable predictions, and doing the testing, measuring, and observing. It may be a fact that a contrail looks like the NSA with a can of Raid, to you, but a scientist wouldn't prove that assertion to be ridiculous by saying "Hu-UH!!!"

, and when they do, try to spin them into something else and ignore what the information actually means. Their writers aren't interested in truth.

Actually they seem to represent the world of science rather accurately. Those interested in "chemtrails OMG, LOL" will find it to be no fun. But science is about what is testable, and what is not, not only fun. It can be fun, of course.

Rofl, I just realized that they used Popular Mechanics as a reliable source.

Popular Mechanics is cited as the source for the more common idiotic paranoic conspiracy theories. See which paragraph has the little "1" by it? But I'm sure they debunked 'em as well.

One additional comment regarding the Patriot Act. Although a few wordings were controversial, 99.99% of it is emphatically recommended and endorsed by every group that ever studied it, most notably the ACLU and related civil rights organizations.

 

If someone is such a genius, then they would understand how important it is not to talk down to their readers. No need to dumb down anything, just present what you have to say without displaying arrogance. Do it with class and professionalism, that's all I ask.

Who said anything about chemtrails?

The fact is; the article fails to acknowledge many key points. That doesn't seem very scientific to me, and also fails on many of the points that have been made. The story acts as a sacred myth to many Americans - Like a religious belief.

"We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes — why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?"

The idea behind this is to create a show that supports the official story that was told to us by NIST. If a lie is going to be created, then it better be elaborate and interesting.

I have heard this before. Would people have an easier time blaming it on terrorists if they simply saw a building collapse out of no where? What would make a greater show? Barbaric men taking planes hostage with knives/boxcutters, or splinter cells somehow getting access to the building and placing God knows how many well-placed bombs in the building to cause it to collapse? The former sounds like a greater story to be told, not to mention how seeing planes physically hit into the towers to be a lot more psychological than just seeing the buildings collapse without warning. To me, the story of splinter cells having enough access to place bombs all over the building sounds a lot more complex than simply hi-jacking planes with boxcutters and ramming them into buildings.

If these terrorists had access to these building, then they would require major assistance. Bomb sniffing dogs, security guards, all of that would have to been taken care of.

It would be a lot easier to plant detonation devices if the owner of the buildings and those in charge of security would allow it to happen.

 

But its so easy. Did you even try? Amy Sweeney, a passenger on AA11, reported a bomb. There are plenty of reports.

 

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant". The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. (description taken from Wikipedia, link to text of original court decision also provided).

==========

As usual our constitutional "scholars" (Rat, Def Zeppelin, pFunk) missed this. But forgive them, it would have required effort.

 

"In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9, 2006."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

"One additional comment regarding the Patriot Act. Although a few wordings were controversial, 99.99% of it is emphatically recommended and endorsed by every group that ever studied it, most notably the ACLU and related civil rights organizations."

The ACLU supports it? (http://www.aclu.org/) That's not the reaction I get when I go to their website or hear stories from them of getting a gag order put on them.

"99.99% of it is emphatically recommended and endorsed by every group that ever studied it"

Really? This is a bold face lie and you know it.

ACLU
http://www.bordc.org/threats/
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55838
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (checksandbalances.org - it's down for some reason).

There are probably many more experts that disagree with you there.

Also, if everyone condones it then its ok?

 

You're right. I apologize. Although, I don't understand how what I said can be considered opinion... That's just a summary of the powers, and my understanding of it is the same understanding of the FLE and many such groups as the ACLU. I just don't think statements like, "The Patriot Act serves out our rights and protects us from harm" as facts. Those aren't facts. Those are opinions. Saying whether or not the FBI has right to search your home without prior knowledge... well that's fact... Whatever, though, it isn't important

But anyway, yup, it's best to simply read the Patriot Act for ourselves
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

 

That was nullified with the passage of the Military Commissions Act (HR-6166) in October 2006, so I guess you're wrong once again.

 

Damn, I'm a "constitutional scholar"? That's a new one, especially considering I don't really know shit about the constitution. And you're right, it would have taken effort. I like to do things throughout the day, so spending hours online just to find a link that may appease you is not in my priority list. What I also like to do, is call out bullshit when I see it and help spread awareness about the truth. If you think that I'm wrong, that's fantastic... wait no, it's hiptastic. Ohhh snap.

-Mike

 

I agree.

I have yet to find a conspiracy theory argument that takes more than 10 minutes to demolish. Since they tend to repeat old debunked lies so often it often takes less than a minute.

Funny, that's what I do too. Its just that I do the research first so I get things right.

 

^ pwnage.

 

"99.99% of it is emphatically recommended and endorsed by every group that ever studied it"

Really? This is a bold face lie and you know it.

All references that you will find on the site of the ACLU (or any other group that has a staff of attorneys) shows they objected only to a very few clauses and provisions. Probably not even a whole typed page of revisions and they would have endorse the act. Their communications to members was absolutely clear on the matter.

I'm a member of the ACLU. Are you? You should join us.

 

No, that act doesn't apply to US citizens. Once again you are too lazy to do the research so you look like a complete fool.

Come on Rat, you lie constantly. Its seems like you can't get anything right.

You clearly don't understand habeas corpus beyond what fearmonger conspiracy websites tell you to think.

You said there were "literally hundreds of cameras" at the Pentagon then you couldn't show us any evidence of that. You said video was confiscated in minutes, and then it turns out you just made that up. You said there was no fighter response on 9/11 for over an hour when actually it took half an hour. Over on another thread you said Bush and the bin Ladens were two of the biggest shareholders in Carlyle, but when I asked you to back that up you couldn't. You claimed there were only "small" fires at building 7 and that you didn't realise there was a wealth of FDNY testimony that said the building was blazing out of control. You said there were 4.2 million cameras in London - twice - and it turned out that was for the entire country.

This is what you have managed in a week - imagine the tally if someone went through your 14,000 posts. Lie after lie after lie, constant factual errors, ignorance, and clear evidence that you just repeat whatever you hear on conspiracy websites.

This would be half as funny if your standard procedure wasn't to lecture people about how they need to "wake up" and "do some research" and think for themselves. You fail at all three, who are you to lecture us?

 

Like you said earlier, it only takes a few minutes to know the truth(and what the fuck you're talking about)
If he (rat) had read the (HR-6166) "which takes a whole 5 minutes" he would have seen the word "alien" in every other sentence.

 

ok ! appreiciate the links, but they are still all hearsay! is there any you can give me with the original recordings?

 

Has Rat always been like this?
If so, I wonder why you guys bother with him.
Some of you guys have been on his ass for 5 years.
Leave him to his own delusions for christ sake.
Slight errors is one thing, we all make mistakes.
It seems he repeats the same bloody errors on a regular basis, even when corrected.
I'm sure in a very short space of time he will be telling some other sap that London has 4.2 million CCTV cameras (and quoting the same link).
Quoting something and getting it embarassingly wrong is just monumentaly stupid
(London / Britain).
He can come across as having a legitimate point of view, but when he repeats errors he has made it just comes across like he has a meth habit for christ sake.
I'd suggest ignoring the **** for 6 months.
But I do feel you guys can't.
Which is sad.
If you did, maybe he would get it through his thick skull to get his facts right and possibly comprehend what he is saying within his own posts.

 

actualy as ive said before, he is very well versed in what is going on! i beleive he takes it to the extreme, but that does not negate, your compliance to that witch is fed to you!

 

He is very well versed in many things, that is true.
He does take it to the extreme, that is ok, he has the right to do that.
That is not the real issue.
He is a competent and articulate young man, with many things going for him.
That is why when he makes stupid errors, it detracts from his core POV.
If he actually aknowledged he was wrong from time to time, and was honest, then the rest of his POV would shine, and a few would not have to be on his ass correcting his glaring mistakes morning noon and night.
Maybe you can ignore the glaring amount of idiotic errors he makes, in the quest to show the bigger picture, but sometimes that is not good enough.

I'm not compliant to wich I am fed, that is just a distraction from admitting he makes mistakes and repeats them on a bi-weekly basis.
This is something you can not say is not true, if you do, you are clearly as blinded and unwilling to aknowledge human frailty as he is.