Nah, they will get shipped off to Guantanamo.
I don’t care what they can or can’t charge me with. My privacy is being violated either way.
Correct. However, it can greatly weaken it. Steel has different stages of strength. It isn’t just strong/pile of molten slag.
For just about every other one of your points, go here, here, or here. That second link is a .gov website, so feel free to ignore that one. The first and third links aren’t, though.
That’s exactly what the Democrats hope. That young, uninformed voters, filled with an unreasonable fear of Bush and his ability to open mail, arrest the innocent, and hatch sanguineous conspiracies that kill thousands of Americans will vote Democrat next election.
I’m not sure what happened on 9/11. Loose change tells exactly 1 side of the story (I’m sure they interviewed tons of people who said they heard 1 explosion for example) and was created with a purpose. That purpose was not finding the truth, as it claims, but creating doubt in the government to win votes in 2008.
You think about it as winning votes. Wow, i never thought about it that way. I’m just happy I actually know what’s going on in the government.
Been to those website man. I said I went to opposite opposing viewpoints.
I’m democrat because I disagree with republican viewpoints. Bill Clinton, no debt remember, that’s amazing. Bush, whoa, we owe lots of money now. Bill, democrat, good, (we have no business in his sex life, that doesn’t make him or break him of a president), bush (he doesn’t even deserve a capital letter), republican, bad.
-Let’s also keep in my the steel work from lower storys should have been at full strength, makes sense, there not hot, they would have slowed the collapse down.
-Shaun Johanneson
No, we’re talking about American citizens here. American citizens have the right to a trial, and to know what they are charged with. Prisoners of war have rights also. Terrorists are unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva conventions) and have the rights of neither. Terrorists are the only people at the Guantanamo jail (99% of them are from overseas, and were known to have either directly fought American forces or played a part in planning or running Al Qaeda or similar groups).
People who are found to be terrorists have no rights. If you are charged with say extortion because of information found in your mail, you will still be a citizen and will go to trial in your area (you will likely be acquitted unless the government had some extraordinary reason to check your mail). If you are charged with terrorism, you are an unlawful combatant and a traitor (punishable by death itself). I doubt they will be opening a lot of mail belonging to citizens anyways.
Monkeyman I seriously doubt this new edict will have any effect on the privacy of any unicyclists.
If I found myself in a situation as described I would certainly call my local ACLU and try to get as much noise made as possible. It’s unlikely though. But I’ll concede that the possibility exists to ship someone off to Cuba without needing any real reason, although why the President would do such a thing is beyond me.
You’ll note that I don’t defend the violation of habeus corpus. (I defend the search of mail in extreme cases, a right which you are not guaranteed) I’m just saying its unlikely to have any affect on Americans who keep their noses clean and that there are ways to get out of it if your nose is clean. You can still petition the courts for a writ of habeus corpus.
I’d also like to note for all of you that think republicans are all alike and all follow the President in every way and all want to invade your privacy:
A bill to allow such terrorists to challenge their detentions was sponsored by Arlen Specter, a REPUBLICAN senator from Pennsylvania (and my fraternity brother). The bill lost (in the old senate, mostly republican) 51-48, with 4 republicans for and one democrat against. So republican does not equal evil (unifreak). Also, now with the Democrat majority, now such a bill could be passed.
Ouch. Not that I’m a fan of George Bush (I’m the opposite), I don’t think you’re being fair to most of the other Republicans to judge them by him. 
Obviously you are not an architect either. The lower floors did slow the collapse. But while the resistance was building, the amount weight coming down was increasing with each floor. You are an expert unicyclist. so I’m sure you know what inertia is, even if you don’t know it by name. Once you set an object in motion it tends to stay in motion, especially if it’s got gravity on its side. Weakened (but not melted) steel structure, many tons of building above the weak spot, and a building built with a “square donut” type of structure. Once the floors started pancaking, nothing was going to stop it. The buildings collapsed exactly the way you would expect them to if you understood how they were built. It’s amazing there were such tall pieces of structure left standing at the bottom. Physics, man.
The “theories” you are trying to sell us are not backed by engineers, scientists or experts. Why is that? And why believe them over objective, smart people in the first place? Because you like the conclusions? If so, let me tell you about the Titanic conspiracy. The boat was “unsinkable.” Everyone said that, and they believed it. There must have been foul play…
Have you learned nothing from the conspiracy theorists? Do you think the President OR Secretary of Defense, whether present or future, should have unquestioned ability to do this? It might not be used now, but it could in the future, if not to detain citizens, it will be used as cause to take away even more rights… it’s a very slippery slope, and the solution is not to melt the ice with global warming.
If you’re talking about the reading of mail, then yes, I do.
Sorry, I couldn’t stay away. You have my great respect as a unicyclist so I feel the need to offer you some help here.
Compared to what? How many other 110-story buildings have fallen down for comparison? Freefall speed is what I’d expect over such a distance, with so much weight. It doesn’t really matter what’s in the way when the top 20 stories gets you going.
Sounds like BS to me. Do you have any links to well-known news sources on this? If bones were found, surely they were studied to find out who they belonged to. Any information about that?
Instead of what–going down toward the spot of injury, like a tree? They’re not trees. And they didn’t collapse from the impact of the planes, remember? They collapsed from weakened structure, mostly in the middle part of the floors where the fires were.
There were remains. It even said so in your factual and unbiased movie. I’ll pose for you the same question I posed in a different thread. What happens to aluminum in a fire?
Well, we wouldn’t want them to start an investigation about the crash, would we? I’m sure the FAA got copies as well. Did someone say they didn’t?
Only one phone? Where was the phone? Who’s phone? And how should a collapsing building sound, compared to a cell signal’s version of what was recorded?
It looked pretty damaged to me. Weren’t you watching TV on 9/11? Is there a reason anyone would want to knock down an extra, smaller building on purpose after something like that? It’s not like “a little more destruction” would make any difference…
Huh? Why should amount of debris change? The volume of materials doesn’t change when you blow something up, it just gets broking into smaller pieces. Sorry, I didn’t watch that section of your factual and unbiased movie.
Many buildings have been crashed into by airplanes, including the Empire State Building, which was hit by a (B-25, I think) bomber during or before WWII. The bomber wasn’t trying to hit the building, and I don’t think it was carrying any bombs.
The assumption is that an airplane crash will be unintentional. This is very different from a fully-fueled, large plane going at top speed. The airplanes did not knock down the Twin Towers. This should be obvious to anyone who remembers the timeline. They took a long time to fall. They fell because of the fires. The fires were intense because the planes had a full load, for very long flights. If there had been a lot less fuel, those buildings would probably still be standing.
Same argument for the Pentagon airplane. Your unbiased movie compares that crash with “normal” airline crashes. In a normal airline crash, two pilots are doing everything in their power to NOT CRASH. They’re going slow. They’ve dumped their fuel if they had time to. And they’re not aiming at stuff. Your factual and unbiased movie compares the Pentagon plane’s path with a plane that crashed after hitting a single light pole. Oh, one light pole and that plane crashed. So? The Pentagon plane crashed too! Because it was going full speed, it had plenty of time to knock down more light poles on its way down.
Ever seen a film of an airplane crashing at high speed? It does exactly the same thing the Pentagon plane did.
Your first linked video didn’t work. The second one was Loose Change, the “factual and unbiased” video I’ve been referring to. Except it isn’t. The reason you believe all the nonsense you currently do is because for some reason you assume the makers of that film are giving you nothing but accurate information. Instead, they’re giving you a load of crap. Some of it is fact, but a lot of it is made up, or nonsense like “where’s the plane” when a plane crash of that nature doesn’t leave much behind. In fact, I have a hard time believing the filmmakers actually believe all of the stuff they’re trying to sell you, because they’d have to keep tripping over “the rest of the story” in the process of filtering out only the stuff they wanted to show. This film was created for entertainment purposes. Kind of like getting your palm read or your future predicted for you.
Where’s the metor from Metor Crater, in Arizona? The hole is about a mile across, but people drilled and drilled for years looking for the rock that did it. My mom has a piece of the meteor(ite). It fits in your hand and it’s one of the bigger ones.
End rant. Sorry, just wanted to help a wayward unicyclist who needs to learn about checking the sources of his information. Also a big fan of the WTC. I did a show there once, and on another occasion I rode my unicycle on the observation deck of the South tower.
(Unaware of the new page started)
The building fell at the same rate as just dropping something from the top. It won’t matter what is said, something was messed with inside. Let’s keep in engineers aren’t stupid (also the field of work i’m going into, i’m a year ahead of my math and science, and still aceing the classes, i’m no idiot) the steel structure in the inside was built for strength. Not just so one little plane and about 50 minutes of fire to take down the WHOLE building in such a nice neat manner. (Both buildings by the way). One more thing, what did bush do when he got the news about the buildings. To me, it makes sense he did nothing. What was he suppose to do? If he knows he’s a bad actor, how does one act when the worst thing in your presidence just happened, oh yeah, and you knew about it… Nothing, you can’t go wrong, no one can pick up you knew anything. Kinda like the right to remain silent, isn’t it?
-Shaun Johanneson
p.s. I=I+AD^2 (not centroid) I did badly at that portion of the class, but It still wasn’t horrible.
Can you say: qoute?
PM
(Aware of the new page)
If you haven’t noticed the government basically controls everything. The bones on other buildings (years later), never really hit the news. I guess it’s trust, but years later those people that found the bones weren’t out to prove anything, they just had to tell someone, they dont’ know why they were there.
Wow, you should really watch those movies though. They answer everything you said. Oh by the way building 7 had everything the government did wrong. And many other scandles. Get rid of it, and it’s like a clean slate.
But I dont’ really expect you to change your mind. You’re alittle too old to have a changed mindset. It’s sad, I guess after a certain age you just quit caring about knowledge, and what the hell is going on around you. It’s best maybe that everyone doesn’t know, I wouldn’t want complete antigov. Fortunently the older people will believe it was legit, and hopefully us younger will look into it, and make a choice from what we see and learn from both sides. Not just what we are told from the news (gov fed info, keep that in mind). Laters. I’m not coming back here.
-Shaun Johanneson
Poof. The alloy rims of my unicycles disappeared.
This is why I’m an atheist, just put this statement in reference to the Bible.
When the weight of half of a skyscraper collapses, it’s not going to stop. It’s going to go verrrry fast, especially if the “support” beneath it is weakened.
Yes, a plane hit the building. One could assume something on the inside was a little messed up.
Yeah, I guess Boeing 767s aren’t really that big. The 24,000 gallons of fuel probably didn’t really do anything either.
Am I missing your point, or are you seriously trying to say that because both buildings collapsed after a 175-ton PLANE crashed into it?
The spin is making my head hurt. Please stop.
Did you seriously mean that? That takes stupidity to an entirely new level. You should get a trophy or something.
What does the speed of the collapse have to do with anything? You’re saying the buildings fell quickly because…??? The lower levels cushioned the fall? Wouldn’t they do so in a demolition as well?
When Bush got the news, he moved to a safe location, scrambled fighters and grounded all flights. Pretty reasonable stuff.
The “WHOLE BUILDING” was not comprimised by the fires. Only a few floors were comprimised. The floors above these were destroyed by falling 1000 feet, and the floors below these each were comprimised in rapid succession by the massive weight and momentum of the floors above it crashing down on top of it.
I’m guessing BOTH buildings fell because they were nearly identical and hit by nearly identical planes. They seemed to fall in nearly identical manners.
Check out the Popular Mechanics article Monkeyman linked earlier: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
They contact some of the sources quoted in loose change (doesn’t deserve caps) and other similar websites who said they were misquoted. Several facts were simply misstated, others exaggerated or taken out of context. They also contact experts who were (for obvious reasons) left out of your “sources.”
I don’t think you should attack John’s Age, has nothing to do with the arguement. Logical fallacy called something, I forget. Besides, a mind that changes so easily is what videos like this target. John is just raising more questions about the “unbiased” video that cannot really be answered. There are holes in the video’s theory.
Yeah, I posted this stuff in another thread already. I don’t believe it, but i think its interesting.