Judge who decided Wiretaps unconstitutional has ties to ACLU

[Cdowwe]

The judge (Taylor) who decided the NSA wiretaps gives money to the ACLU and has ties. This doesnt mean she decided wrong (agree or not), just saying she definately should not have been the judge in this case, that involved the ACLU

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/washington/23judge.html

[twa]

You could try one of the OTHER threads about it
There are links there ;)

[Midnight Judges]

ho man I bet she has ties to that liberal bar association as well. :dunce:

[PokerPacker]

ho man I bet she has ties to that liberal bar association as well. :dunce:
ZING!

[Cdowwe]

You could try one of the OTHER threads about it
There are links there ;)

DIdnt see anything about how she ruled in favor of her own group. But I only searched the first 5 pages lol

[nelms]

Remember, this is a judge that was appointed by Ayatollah Carter

[Destino]

Sorry but I don't see the conflict of interest there. She is part of a group that designates gifts, a group that has chosen to give to the ACLU in the past. If she worked for the ACLU, had something to gain from the ACLU doing well, or had received money from the ACLU... then ok that would be a conflict of interest. This case however doesn't seem to come close.

[twa]

Destino, I agree it is a flimsy accusation and truly not worth bothering with,especialy since her incompetent legal reasoning in the case should be the issue....Why sweat the small stuff? :laugh:

[Cdowwe]

Sorry but I don't see the conflict of interest there. She is part of a group that designates gifts, a group that has chosen to give to the ACLU in the past. If she worked for the ACLU, had something to gain from the ACLU doing well, or had received money from the ACLU... then ok that would be a conflict of interest. This case however doesn't seem to come close.

Maybe true, but I could just imagine if the tables were turned. If some judge was a member of a group that gave money to the NRA, then ruled in favor of the NRA, the ACLU would be up in arms (no pun intended)

[DjTj]

Maybe true, but I could just imagine if the tables were turned. If some judge was a member of a group that gave money to the NRA, then ruled in favor of the NRA, the ACLU would be up in arms (no pun intended)I don't think the ACLU is very active on the guns issue, so they probably wouldn't even be involved in any cases like that.

However, your point is well taken, if you replace NRA with the Christian Coalition or a group like that.

I think all it really shows is that people on both sides are sore losers ... and that this is as much a political issue as it is a legal issue. You're going to have groups on both sides grasping at straws to support their argument, and that's to be expected in a robust democracy like our own.

[Cdowwe]

I don't think the ACLU is very active on the guns issue, so they probably wouldn't even be involved in any cases like that.

However, your point is well taken, if you replace NRA with the Christian Coalition or a group like that.

I think all it really shows is that people on both sides are sore losers ... and that this is as much a political issue as it is a legal issue. You're going to have groups on both sides grasping at straws to support their argument, and that's to be expected in a robust democracy like our own.

Yea guns probably wasnt a good choice, just couldnt think of a better analogy at the time

[Jibby]

Anyone who has read the 4th amendment should have no problem with her ruling.

[Larry]

I wouldn't have a problem if her ruling had been on 4th ammendment grounds. But I get the impression that she tried (and failed) to list a bunch of other reasons.

[Jibby]

I wouldn't have a problem if her ruling had been on 4th ammendment grounds. But I get the impression that she tried (and failed) to list a bunch of other reasons.She listed a bunch of reasons, but she stated in her opinion that had Specter's bill passed enacting this crap into law, it still would be illegal based on the 4th amendment.

Basically, the 4th amendment trumps all. There are other reasons why it is illegal too, but these reasons are irrelevant since it is unconstitutional in the first place.

[portisizzle]

Where is the Amendment that says the government should try and to keep my punk ass safe?

[Jibby]

Where is the Amendment that says the government should try and to keep my punk ass safe?Well, the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

This constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Larry]

Now, me, I'd point out that the 4th has that word "unreasonable" in it. I'd say that normally, the way to determine what's "reasonable" is "whatever Congress agrees to".

However, if you establish that precident, then the 4th becomes meaningless. If all it takes to ignore it is for Congress to pass a law, then it serves no purpose whatsoever. I'd claim, therefore, that the Framers intended that limiting the Fourth be tougher than just passing any ordinary law, but not as tough as ammending the Constitution.

But, the only way to come up with a method that's tougher than an ordinary law, but easier than an Ammendment, is to legislate from the bench.

Now me, personally: I do think the President needs authorities for dealing with National Security threats that the framers didn't build in to the Constitution. Ben Franklin didn't live in a world where one person could destroy Boston.

If Congress passes a law authorising national security wiretaps, even of american citizens, and the President signs it (without that "I had my fingers crossed" BS), that has some oversight and some reasonable restrictions in it, then I might think it's technically unconstitutional, but I'd shut up and go along with it.

[Jibby]

Now, me, I'd point out that the 4th has that word "unreasonable" in it. I'd say that normally, the way to determine what's "reasonable" is "whatever Congress agrees to".

However, if you establish that precident, then the 4th becomes meaningless. If all it takes to ignore it is for Congress to pass a law, then it serves no purpose whatsoever. I'd claim, therefore, that the Framers intended that limiting the Fourth be tougher than just passing any ordinary law, but not as tough as ammending the Constitution.

But, the only way to come up with a method that's tougher than an ordinary law, but easier than an Ammendment, is to legislate from the bench.

Now me, personally: I do think the President needs authorities for dealing with National Security threats that the framers didn't build in to the Constitution. Ben Franklin didn't live in a world where one person could destroy Boston.

If Congress passes a law authorising national security wiretaps, even of american citizens, and the President signs it (without that "I had my fingers crossed" BS), that has some oversight and some reasonable restrictions in it, then I might think it's technically unconstitutional, but I'd shut up and go along with it.No law can be passed that overrules the constitution.

If it did need to be changed (and it doesn't), the constitution can be amended.

[portisizzle]

No law can be passed that overrules the constitution.

Oh yea??


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of LIBERTY to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



What exactly is the President of the United States charged with? I mean if someone came up to you today and said that a wiretap produced information that would have prempted the devastation of 9/11 would you argue the nature in which this information was gathered?

By your logic you WOULD argue the point. In my opinion this says a LOT about what you do and do NOT read in our Constitution.

[BlueTalon]

Maybe true, but I could just imagine if the tables were turned. If some judge was a member of a group that gave money to the NRA, then ruled in favor of the NRA, the ACLU would be up in arms (no pun intended)
Too bad, you managed a couple of good puns in one shot!

[Jibby]

Oh yea??


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of LIBERTY to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



What exactly is the President of the United States charged with? I mean if someone came up to you today and said that a wiretap produced information that would have prempted the devastation of 9/11 would you argue the nature in which this information was gathered?

By your logic you WOULD argue the point. In my opinion this says a LOT about what you do and do NOT read in our Constitution.You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution to defend. The whole thing needs to be defended.

The 4th amendment is crystal clear. The place to be searched, and the people or items to be seized, need to be written down and submitted to obtain a warrant.

The president has violated this and should be held accountable.

[BlueTalon]

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution to defend. The whole thing needs to be defended.

The 4th amendment is crystal clear. The place to be searched, and the people or items to be seized, need to be written down and submitted to obtain a warrant.

The president has violated this and should be held accountable.
Um, what places are being searched, and what people or items are being seized, in this surveillance program? Be specific.

[Jibby]

Um, what places are being searched, and what people ar items are being seized, in this surveillance program? Be specific.How can I be specific?? It's cloak and dagger stuff. The Bush regime hasn't revealed anything.

I suspect theyre using this program to spy on their political enemies much like Nixon did. The whole terrorism surveillance thing is a front.

[Larry]

So who decides what an unreasonable search is?

Given a choice between working out a compromise between two (probably three) branches of government, or simply having a judge declare that a certain search is or isn't reasonable, I'll take the compromise.

The example I'd use is the War Powers Act.

There's a position, declared by many recent Presidents, that the Constitution grants the President to do anything with the military he wants, because he's the Commander, and all Congress gets to do is decide whether something officially gets called a "war".

Me, I think the Framers intended Congress' part in going to war to be a bit more involved than declaring the State Pie of Florida. I think the Framers lived in a world in which Congress declared war, and then the President decided how to execute it.

However, in a world with 20-minute-ICBMs, I don't think it's possible, when NORAD detects incomming, for Congress to decide whether we shoot back.

The WPA grants to the President, authority to authorise military action on his own authority for some time period (30 days?) without prior Congressional authority.

Every President since then has claimed that this law is an unconstitutional attempt to put a 30-day ceiling on their Constitutional authority.

I think the WPA was Congress voluntarily granting some of Congress' authority to the President.

Yeah, maybe it should have been an Ammendment. But I don't think that was necessary.

[portisizzle]

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution to defend. The whole thing needs to be defended.

The 4th amendment is crystal clear. The place to be searched, and the people or items to be seized, need to be written down and submitted to obtain a warrant.

The president has violated this and should be held accountable.


You just said no law can be passed that undermines the Constitution. I just showed how your logic might well undermine the exact reason why the Constitution exists.

Liberty is freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"


So I ask you who are you more concerned is violating our Liberty. The President or our moral enemies who are faceless and within our matrix as we speak.

Speak nothing to me about the 4th Amendment until you can assure me that the Constitution will remain intact via proactive and determined action by the individuals we elect against those that TRULY want to do damage to our Rebublic and its ideals.

[Jibby]

So who decides what an unreasonable search is?
Later in the amendment, probable cause is mentioned. So, probable cause is what determines whether the search is reasonable or not.

Hayden has tried to establish a lesser standard, something he calls "reasonable certainty". This blatantly ignores the constitution, as members of the Bush regime seem to do frequently.

[Jibby]

So I ask you who are you more concerned is violating our Liberty. The President or our moral enemies who are faceless and within our matrix as we speak.

The president cannot unilaterally decide who our "moral enemies" are. Get it??

[Larry]

Um, what places are being searched, and what people or items are being seized, in this surveillance program? Be specific.

How about "every person in the country who has Bell or Sprint telephone service"?

That's one of the things Bush has claimed a Constitutional authority to sieze. The records of every single telephone conversation, nationwide.

How about "every single financial transaction in or around Las Vegas, for the month of December, (2003?)". That's another of the things they've vacumed up.

Or "the passenger lists of every airline flight, anywhere in the world"?

(And do you really intend to try to claim that if someone's searched, but the administration covers it up, then nothing wrong's happened?)

[Jibby]

How about "every person in the country who has Bell or Sprint telephone service"?

That's one of the things Bush has claimed a Constitutional authority to sieze. The records of every single telephone conversation, nationwide.

How about "every single financial transaction in or around Las Vegas, for the month of December, (2003?)". That's another of the things they've vacumed up.

Or "the passenger lists of every airline flight, anywhere in the world"?

(And do you really intend to try to claim that if someone's searched, but the administration covers it up, then nothing wrong's happened?)Well, this has been leaked. But nobody in the Bush regime has gone to a court to attempt to obtain warrants for these things. They've gone around the constitution and done so blatantly.

There should be no debate here.

[portisizzle]

Well, the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

This constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


UNREASONABLE.
definition

# not reasonable; not showing good judgment
# excessive: beyond normal limits; "excessive charges"; "a book of inordinate length"; "his dress stops just short of undue elegance"; "unreasonable demands"


1) Is the President NOT showing good judgement. Tell us why.
2) Is wiretapping excessive and beyond normal limits. Please tell us what we might consider normal in the prosecution of terrorists?

[BlueTalon]

How can I be specific?? It's cloak and dagger stuff. The Bush regime hasn't revealed anything.

I suspect theyre using this program to spy on their political enemies much like Nixon did. The whole terrorism surveillance thing is a front.
Man, you are quite the fruit loop. You quote the 4th Amendment, saying that Bush took the oath to protect it (as have I, by the way), he's targeting his political enemies, blah blah blah, but you can't name a single specific example of how the 4th Amendment is being violated? How can you possible know anything you claim to know?

If you want to look at a regime that used the apparatus of government to spy on its political enemies, the Clinton regime is the best example. In the Nixon undoing, Chuck Colson went to prison for having one (1) FBI file unauthorized. In the Clinton White House, there were about a thousand of them. (Remind me again, who went to prison for that?)

[portisizzle]

The president cannot unilaterally decide who our "moral enemies" are. Get it??

Commander in Chief??

** edit sorry** in case you missed it out moral enemy right now are Islamic extremists. Am I wrong?

[Jibby]

Man, you are quite the fruit loop. You quote the 4th Amendment, saying that Bush took the oath to protect it (as have I, by the way), he's targeting his political enemies, blah blah blah, but you can't name a single specific example of how the 4th Amendment is being violated? How can you possible know anything you claim to know?

If you want to look at a regime that used the apparatus of government to spy on its political enemies, the Clinton regime is the best example. In the Nixon undoing, Chuck Colson went to prison for having one (1) FBI file unauthorized. In the Clinton White House, there were about a thousand of them. (Remind me again, who went to prison for that?)Anytime a regressive brings up Clinton, he knows he's beat.

What's been leaked should scare you, BT. The Bush administration has apparentlygone around collecting information and wiretapping individuals based on nothing, and there awere no warrants issued.

They should go to jail for this.

[Jibby]

Commander in Chief??Ever heard of congress??

[Larry]

Later in the amendment, probable cause is mentioned. So, probable cause is what determines whether the search is reasonable or not.

Sorry.

What it says is that people shall be free from unreasonable searches without probable cause.

Unfortunately, that word "unreasonable" leaves wiggle room. (As do a lot of words in the Constitution I wish they'd clarified.)

(Now, I do think that this is one of the cases when a judge would be correct in pulling down, say, Ben Franklin's memoirs, and checking up on what they thought "unreasonable" meant, when they wrote it.)

[portisizzle]

Ever heard of congress??


Ever heard of LEADERSHIP?

[Jibby]

Sorry.

What it says is that people shall be free from unreasonable searches without probable cause.

Unfortunately, that word "unreasonable" leaves wiggle room. (As do a lot of words in the Constitution I wish they'd clarified.)

(Now, I do think that this is one of the cases when a judge would be correct in pulling down, say, Ben Franklin's memoirs, and checking up on what they thought "unreasonable" meant, when they wrote it.)I think you're getting too hung up on that one word. It states clearly that information needs to be submitted to courts detailing the places, persons, and things being searched.

It's clear that the Bush regime has done none of this.

[portisizzle]

The whole terrorism surveillance thing is a front.

Prove this or retract this statement. Your credibility is at stake.

[Jibby]

Ever heard of LEADERSHIP?Ever heard of pnac?

[Jibby]

Prove this or retract this statement. Your credibility is at stake.I said that's what I suspected. I can't prove it.

[BlueTalon]

Given a choice between working out a compromise between two (probably three) branches of government, or simply having a judge declare that a certain search is or isn't reasonable, I'll take the compromise.

The example I'd use is the War Powers Act.

There's a position, declared by many recent Presidents, that the Constitution grants the President to do anything with the military he wants, because he's the Commander, and all Congress gets to do is decide whether something officially gets called a "war".

Me, I think the Framers intended Congress' part in going to war to be a bit more involved than declaring the State Pie of Florida. I think the Framers lived in a world in which Congress declared war, and then the President decided how to execute it.

However, in a world with 20-minute-ICBMs, I don't think it's possible, when NORAD detects incomming, for Congress to decide whether we shoot back.

The WPA grants to the President, authority to authorise military action on his own authority for some time period (30 days?) without prior Congressional authority.

Every President since then has claimed that this law is an unconstitutional attempt to put a 30-day ceiling on their Constitutional authority.

I think the WPA was Congress voluntarily granting some of Congress' authority to the President.

Yeah, maybe it should have been an Ammendment. But I don't think that was necessary.
This is a little off topic, but I agree with you on the nature of the War Powers Act. However, I disagree on the reason for it. The stated reason might be quick response in time of emergency, but I think the real reason, hiding behind the stated reason, is that congress just doesn't have the guts to declare war any more. Voting on a declaration of war is too close to making an actual decision for which they can be held accountable. They're just as happy to let the President make the decisions and take the heat, Constitution be damned.

[portisizzle]

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution to defend. The whole thing needs to be defended.

The 4th amendment is crystal clear. The place to be searched, and the people or items to be seized, need to be written down and submitted to obtain a warrant.

The president has violated this and should be held accountable.

Sir you continue to avoid the point. Who is the prime enemy that is violating our Liberty? Are you saying it is Bush and not Islamic extremeists?

[portisizzle]

I said that's what I suspected. I can't prove it.

Thank you. Lets continue.

[Jibby]

Sir you continue to avoid the point. Who is the prime enemy that is violating our Liberty? Are you saying it is Bush and not Islamic extremeists?Yes.

[nelms]

I said that's what I suspected. I can't prove it.
:doh: I "suspect" a lot of things too. I "suspect" you are insane. Can I prove it? No. But I "suspect" it.

[Jibby]

:doh: I "suspect" a lot of things too. I "suspect" you are insane. Can I prove it? No. But I "suspect" it.I suspect you dipped your false teeth in vodka instead of water this morning.

[Larry]

Man, you are quite the fruit loop. You quote the 4th Amendment, saying that Bush took the oath to protect it (as have I, by the way), he's targeting his political enemies, blah blah blah, but you can't name a single specific example of how the 4th Amendment is being violated? How can you possible know anything you claim to know?

The subject being discussed is: Does the President have the right to order searches without a warrant?

The President, himself, has said that he's done it, and that he intends to keep doing it.

If you want to discuss whether, in fact, the President does have this authority, then I'd love some reasoned debate. (I'll point out: I'm stating that I, personally, want him to have such an authority. I just want it to have a more formal proceedure than the President writing a memo to himself granting authority to himself, and then putting it in his desk drawer and going ahead and doing it.)

If, OTOH, you're going to persist in claiming that american citizens don't have the right or ability to discuss how much authority the President has unless they're revealing classified information whenever you demand it, then well, knock yourself out, and feel free to keep demanding it. And please don't feel offended if you get ignored.

[portisizzle]

Ever heard of pnac?


I have read "The New American Militarism" by Andrew Bacevich. Of course I disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth.

But if you bring up pnac you would like his diatribe.

Why not state your case?

[Jibby]

I have read "The New American Militarism" by Andrew Bacevich. Of course I disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth.

But if you bring up pnac you would like his diatribe.

Why not state your case?I've been stating it.

[Larry]

This is a little off topic, but I agree with you on the nature of the War Powers Act. However, I disagree on the reason for it. The stated reason might be quick response in time of emergency, but I think the real reason, hiding behind the stated reason, is that congress just doesn't have the guts to declare war any more. Voting on a declaration of war is too close to making an actual decision for which they can be held accountable. They're just as happy to let the President make the decisions and take the heat, Constitution be damned.

Oh, I don't doubt that was part of the reason.

For example, I think Congress could end this whole "warrantless wiretap" debate by just modifying the FISA statute. But that would involve making decisions. And remember, part of the reason we're wheer we are is because Congress didn't want Clinton to have the same authority that Bush is now claiming.

(And part of the difficulty is that Bush can't tell Congress what to change, without telling them which parts he broke.)

(The fact that it's an election year also means that the odds of a compromise are rather slim, too.)

[Jibby]

Oh, I don't doubt that was part of the reason.

For example, I think Congress could end this whole "warrantless wiretap" debate by just modifying the FISA statute. But that would involve making decisions. And remember, part of the reason we're wheer we are is because Congress didn't want Clinton to have the same authority that Bush is now claiming.

(And part of the difficulty is that Bush can't tell Congress what to change, without telling them which parts he broke.)

(The fact that it's an election year also means that the odds of a compromise are rather slim, too.)They can't amend FISA now. This judge's ruling is very clear, any law authorizing warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

[portisizzle]

I've been stating it.

Are we a militaristic state. A facist state even?
If you bring up pnac you must have a position and you indeed have not be so bold as to state it yet.

[BlueTalon]

Anytime a regressive brings up Clinton, he knows he's beat.

What's been leaked should scare you, BT. The Bush administration has apparentlygone around collecting information and wiretapping individuals based on nothing, and there awere no warrants issued.

They should go to jail for this.
"regressive"? That's funny!

If you bother to take the time to read any of my other posts, you will find that I do not habitually bring up the subject of Clinton. I am usually quite happy to let him languish in irrelevancy. However, you made the assertion without any basis in fact that the Bush "regime" is using the program to spy on his political enemies. I then introduced some actual facts regarding American Presidential Administrations who actually did engage in spying on political enemies. Logically, if that practice bothers you, you would be upset with the Clinton Administration for engaging in it. However, I strongly suspect that I'll be woefully disappointed if I expect logic or rationality from your arguments, and I conclude that you threw out that assertion simply to have something more to bash Bush with, even if it's constructed of vapor.

In no way was I "beat".

And I'm certainly not scared of the program. You fear what you do not know, and in this case, your heightened ignorance is leading to heightened fear. FYI, I worked in signals intelligence for the last decade, and while I was not directly involved in this program, I understand how intelligence is gathered and handled. I am quite comfortable with the program, and don't feel that my privacy is the least bit invaded. And as long as you don't call any terrorists, or don't make any overseas phone calls and talk about bomb making or Hezbollah or OBL, you can relax too.

[Jibby]

Are we a militaristic state. A facist state even?
If you bring up pnac you must have a position and you indeed have not be so bold as to state it yet.Of course I have a position. This is a thread about warrantless wiretapping.

[portisizzle]

Of course I have a position. This is a thread about warrantless wiretapping.

Then why bring up pnac?

[Jibby]

"regressive"? That's funny!

If you bother to take the time to read any of my other posts, you will find that I do not habitually bring up the subject of Clinton. I am usually quite happy to let him languish in irrelevancy. However, you made the assertion without any basis in fact that the Bush "regime" is using the program to spy on his political enemies. I then introduced some actual facts regarding American Presidential Administrations who actually did engage in spying on political enemies. Logically, if that practice bothers you, you would be upset with the Clinton Administration for engaging in it. However, I strongly suspect that I'll be woefully disappointed if I expect logic or rationality from your arguments, and I conclude that you threw out that assertion simply to have something more to bash Bush with, even if it's constructed of vapor.

In no way was I "beat".

And I'm certainly not scared of the program. You fear what you do not know, and in this case, your heightened ignorance is leading to heightened fear. FYI, I worked in signals intelligence for the last decade, and while I was not directly involved in this program, I understand how intelligence is gathered and handled. I am quite comfortable with the program, and don't feel that my privacy is the least bit invaded. And as long as you don't call any terrorists, or don't make any overseas phone calls and talk about bomb making or Hezbollah or OBL, you can relax too.I said i suspected they were. And I do. They haven't offered up any situations where this program was necessary. The recent London arrests were made with WARRANTED searches, LAWFUL searches.

You tell me to trust them, but offer no reason as to why. I shouldn't have to trust my government; they should be required to follow the law.

[Jibby]

Then why bring up pnac?You were asking me about leadership. I figured I'd mention the brains behind the operation.

[portisizzle]

You were asking me about leadership. I figured I'd mention the brains behind the operation.

weak.

[BlueTalon]

Oh, I don't doubt that was part of the reason.

For example, I think Congress could end this whole "warrantless wiretap" debate by just modifying the FISA statute. But that would involve making decisions. And remember, part of the reason we're wheer we are is because Congress didn't want Clinton to have the same authority that Bush is now claiming.

(And part of the difficulty is that Bush can't tell Congress what to change, without telling them which parts he broke.)

(The fact that it's an election year also means that the odds of a compromise are rather slim, too.)
I agree with the part about the election year. But I don't agree with the part about Congress. At a minimum, the President briefs the senior members of the Intelligence Committee on things classified, including programs such as this. Well, neither the President nor the members of Congress can divulge what was said in those briefings, so any argument made about what wasn't told to Congress is based on an invalid assumption. (Unless by "Congress" you mean everyone in Congress -- that would be untenable, as not everyone in Congress qualifies for a security clearance.)

[Jibby]

I agree with the part about the election year. But I don't agree with the part about Congress. At a minimum, the President briefs the senior members of the Intelligence Committee on things classified, including programs such as this. Well, neither the President nor the members of Congress can divulge what was said in those briefings, so any argument made about what wasn't told to Congress is based on an invalid assumption. (Unless by "Congress" you mean everyone in Congress -- that would be untenable, as not everyone in Congress qualifies for a security clearance.)Many members of congress who should have been breifed were not briefed. This is on record.

But in the grand scheme of illegality that has been the Bush regime, this is a minor detail.

[Larry]

They can't amend FISA now. This judge's ruling is very clear, any law authorizing warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

But FISA doesn't allow warrantless wiretapping. It allows warrants that just aren't made public.

Reading between the lines (which, unfortunately, is the only way to get information on this subject), the only reasons I can see for Bush not going through the FISA proceedures are:

He wanted to wiretap someone who wasn't covered by FISA.

FISA was posted here a while back. One of the things I remember from reading about half of it was that it frequently made references to monitoring foreign comminucations "when such monitoring is unlikely to result in monitoring of american citizens". Maybe Bush suspected that Al Qeda was operating out of a mideast travel agency, and he thought the court would say "no" because americans might call a travel agency to book a flight.

(I've also seen the theory posted here that a lot of the FISA judges were balking at using information obtained through FISA as grounds to put wiretaps on citizens.)

In any case, if Bush's Problem is people who weren't covered by FISA, then IMO, that can be changed.
.
He couldn't meet the specified burden of proof to get a warrant.

In that case, IMO, he effed up.

[Jibby]

But FISA doesn't allow warrantless wiretapping. It allows warrants that just aren't made public.

Reading between the lines (which, unfortunately, is the only way to get information on this subject), the only reasons I can see for Bush not going through the FISA proceedures are:

He wanted to wiretap someone who wasn't covered by FISA.



FISA was posted here a while back. One of the things I remember from reading about half of it was that it frequently made references to monitoring foreign comminucations "when such monitoring is unlikely to result in monitoring of american citizens". Maybe Bush suspected that Al Qeda was operating out of a mideast travel agency, and he thought the court would say "no" because americans might call a travel agency to book a flight.



(I've also seen the theory posted here that a lot of the FISA judges were balking at using information obtained through FISA as grounds to put wiretaps on citizens.)



In any case, if Bush's Problem is people who weren't covered by FISA, then IMO, that can be changed.

.
He couldn't meet the specified burden of proof to get a warrant.



In that case, IMO, he effed up.
how about this

-he wanted to spy on his political enemies, and is using terrorism as an excuse to do so

[Popeman38]

They can't amend FISA now. This judge's ruling is very clear, any law authorizing warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.
First, anyone mentioning FISA in this thread clearly has no idea what FISA really is. It is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It only applies to foriegn entities. Tapping a foreign number and intercepting any and all calls to and from that number. Revise it all you want, it can not be used against US citizens, ever.

As for the judge ruling it unconstitutional. Will you feel that the precedence has been set if the Appelate Court overturns her decision? Or will you b**** and moan about how the courts are out to get US citizens then too?

[portisizzle]

how about this

-he wanted to spy on his political enemies, and is using terrorism as an excuse to do so

Ok back to regularly scheduled programming. I am OUT!! wow

[BlueTalon]

I said i suspected they were. And I do. They haven't offered up any situations where this program was necessary.
OK, here is the first thing you need to know about intelligence gathering. You never give up your source, and you never reveal the connections between sources and information. Why? Because when a source of information becomes known, it quits being a source for information.

What you want will never be given to you. (Or if it is, it means someone has made the decision to pull the plug on it as a means for gathering intelligence, probably because it has already been compromised.)

If you REALLY want to know about situations where this program has been necessary, I suggest you join the military and get into signals intelligence. You will learn plenty of secrets there.

[Larry]

I agree with the part about the election year. But I don't agree with the part about Congress. At a minimum, the President briefs the senior members of the Intelligence Committee on things classified, including programs such as this. Well, neither the President nor the members of Congress can divulge what was said in those briefings, so any argument made about what wasn't told to Congress is based on an invalid assumption. (Unless by "Congress" you mean everyone in Congress -- that would be untenable, as not everyone in Congress qualifies for a security clearance.)

But, everyone in Congress does have a vote on whether to modify FISA.

(And given the actions of this administration, I'd be amazed if Bush told "the other party" what's going on. Remember, for example, this administration, when Congress was debating McCain's anti-torture law (which Bush later signed, then announced he was going to ignore.), decided that what was needed was a classified briefing in which security clearance was granted to every Republican congressman, and no Democrats.)

[Popeman38]

how about this

-he wanted to spy on his political enemies, and is using terrorism as an excuse to do so
How about this

-put down the crack pipe

Oh, wait. I have no proof that you are a crack addict so this would be baselessly calling you something I can't prove. Much like the drivel you just posted...

[Jibby]

First, anyone mentioning FISA in this thread clearly has no idea what FISA really is. It is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It only applies to foriegn entities. Tapping a foreign number and intercepting any and all calls to and from that number. Revise it all you want, it can not be used against US citizens, ever.

As for the judge ruling it unconstitutional. Will you feel that the precedence has been set if the Appelate Court overturns her decision? Or will you b**** and moan about how the courts are out to get US citizens then too?The precedent is the US Constitution, not her argument.

[BlueTalon]

how about this
-he wanted to spy on his political enemies, and is using terrorism as an excuse to do so
Cue Twilight Zone music...

[Jibby]

How about this

-put down the crack pipe

Oh, wait. I have no proof that you are a crack addict so this would be baselessly calling you something I can't prove. Much like the drivel you just posted...It should be obvious that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1. I don't see why you are all surprised that I don't absolutely trust them on this matter, either.

[Larry]

how about this

-he wanted to spy on his political enemies, and is using terrorism as an excuse to do so

Not 100% impossible. (After all, that's what Nixon claimed.)

However, I think you'll find that people won't treat you like such a whackjob if you stick to arguing the Constitution, instead of your theories about evil unsupported theories.

[portisizzle]

Cue Twilight Zone music...

I was thinking more along the line of Mr. Ed.

[portisizzle]

It should be obvious that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1. I don't see why you are all surprised that I don't absolutely trust them on this matter, either.

Yea, Dan Rather did a masterful job of proving this point a few years back eh?

[Popeman38]

The precedent is the US Constitution, not her argument.
That is funny, because just last page you said:

They can't amend FISA now. This judge's ruling is very clear, any law authorizing warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.
That seems to be using her ruling as the precedent. Which is it?

[Jibby]

Not 100% impossible. (After all, that's what Nixon claimed.)

However, I think you'll find that people won't treat you like such a whackjob if you stick to arguing the Constitution, instead of your theories about evil unsupported theories.Bush hasn't offered up any reason for why this is necessary. You'd think if it were actually necessary, there'd be reasons given by the Bush regime.

I think there's good reason to think this is spying not on terrorists, but on political enemies and other people of interest.

[PokerPacker]

Cue Twilight Zone music...
somehow, i was thinking the same thing.

[Popeman38]

It should be obvious that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1. I don't see why you are all surprised that I don't absolutely trust them on this matter, either.
Your bias has ben shown over and over in this thread by your use of the word "regime".

[Jibby]

That seems to be using her ruling as the precedent. Which is it?Well, even before her ruling any law like Specter's would have been unconstitutional, but her ruling makes that crystal clear and it's fresh in people's minds.

Absent her ruling they might have been able to get away with it, but not now.

[Jibby]

Your bias has ben shown over and over in this thread by your use of the word "regime".I want to emphasize the fascist nature of our rulers.

[portisizzle]

Absent her ruling they might have been able to get away with it, but not now.


Sweet.

[BlueTalon]

It should be obvious that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1. I don't see why you are all surprised that I don't absolutely trust them on this matter, either.
LOL!!! Are you just now coming to the realization that it is not obvious to everyone that "that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1"?

Here's a clue. Pretend it's not obvious to everyone, and explain to us clearly why it's obvious to you.

[portisizzle]

I want to emphasize the fascist nature of our rulers.

Bloop there it is!!

Your true nature is shining for all to see. Of course I want the past 50 minutes of my life back.

[Jibby]

LOL!!! Are you just now coming to the realization that it is not obvious to everyone that "that the Bush regime has been lying from day 1"?

Here's a clue. Pretend it's not obvious to everyone, and explain to us clearly why it's obvious to you.If it's not obvious to you by now, it never will be.

[Popeman38]

Bush hasn't offered up any reason for why this is necessary. You'd think if it were actually necessary, there'd be reasons given by the Bush regime.

I think there's good reason to think this is spying not on terrorists, but on political enemies and other people of interest.
I think there is good reason to suspect that you have an agenda! Only difference is, I can go through this thread and prove it by using your own words...

As a side note, what use does a lame duckPresident have with spying on the other side?

[Jibby]

Bloop there it is!!

Your true nature is shining for all to see. Of course I want the past 50 minutes of my life back.Ask Hayden. He has it all on record, he'll rewind it for you.

[portisizzle]

As a side note, what use does a lame duckPresident have with spying on the other side?


THIRD TERM.

[Popeman38]

I want to emphasize the fascist nature of our rulers.
So pleas pardon my reference to you from here on out as DA to show the ingnornace of your postings.

See the corelation?

[Jibby]

I think there is good reason to suspect that you have an agenda! Only difference is, I can go through this thread and prove it by using your own words...

As a side note, what use does a lame duckPresident have with spying on the other side?Well, this program has been in use since 2001.

If you think Bushco are going away in 2009, you're sadly mistaken. Theyre here to stay.

[BlueTalon]

Bush hasn't offered up any reason for why this is necessary. You'd think if it were actually necessary, there'd be reasons given by the Bush regime.

I think there's good reason to think this is spying not on terrorists, but on political enemies and other people of interest.
I'm dying to find out what you think a "good reason" is.

Regarding Bush offering up reasons for the program, let's try this again (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2849601&postcount=65).

[Larry]

Bush hasn't offered up any reason for why this is necessary. You'd think if it were actually necessary, there'd be reasons given by the Bush regime.

I think there's good reason to think this is spying not on terrorists, but on political enemies and other people of interest.

Actually, Bush has said why it was done.

Granted, his "case" is "I decided it was necessary". (And a lot of other things involving "implied" (meaning "it's supposed to be in the Constitution, I just can't point at it") powers and "well, Congress authorised 'any necessary means'" (which clearly means "including ignoring the Constitution").) I don't think a lot about his reasons.

But he has given them.

Now, if you're going to try to claim that if he won't reveal which of Ossamma's phones he's monitoring (and, therefore, which ones he isn't), then this somehow proves that it's political, then my response to you is going to be similar to the folks who claim that if you can't prove the searches aren't justified, then that proves that they are.

[portisizzle]

Well, this program has been in use since 2001.

If you think Bushco are going away in 2009, you're sadly mistaken. Theyre here to stay.


THIRD TERM.

SWEET!!

[Jibby]

I'm dying to find out what you think a "good reason" is.

Regarding Bush offering up reasons for the program, let's try this again (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2849601&postcount=65).I'm not even talking specific reasons. Hypothetical ones haven't even been proffered.

[Jibby]

THIRD TERM.

SWEET!!For you maybe. But you're a mindless drone.

[Jibby]

Actually, Bush has said why it was done.

Granted, his "case" is "I decided it was necessary". (And a lot of other things involving "implied" (meaning "it's supposed to be in the Constitution, I just can't point at it") powers and "well, Congress authorised 'any necessary means'" (which clearly means "including ignoring the Constitution").) I don't think a lot about his reasons.

But he has given them.

Now, if you're going to try to claim that if he won't reveal which of Ossamma's phones he's monitoring (and, therefore, which ones he isn't), then this somehow proves that it's political, then my response to you is going to be similar to the folks who claim that if you can't prove the searches aren't justified, then that proves that they are.Even a hypothetical case where a program like this is necessary hasn't been offered.

[Popeman38]

For you maybe. But you're a mindless drone.
With just a little more life experience than you. By the way, how did you become a leading authority on the legalities of the Bush admin? Or are you just reciting your Soc 201 notes?

[Jibby]

With just a little more life experience than you. By the way, how did you become a leading authority on the legalities of the Bush admin? Or are you just reciting your Soc 201 notes?I've done my reading. And I haven't been sniffing glue.

[Popeman38]

I've done my reading. And I haven't been sniffing glue.
You have read? What have you read? Have you read any classified docs on the program? Have you sat in when the admin explained the program to select members of Congress? Do you have any working knowledge of FISA? Have you ever actually worked on an itel gathering mission? Or are you basing this solely on the NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Al Jazeera.com?

[BlueTalon]

If it's not obvious to you by now, it never will be.
Refusing to give a simple answer a simple question?

THAT'S how you know someone was beat!

[Jibby]

You have read? What have you read? Have you read any classified docs on the program? Have you sat in when the admin explained the program to select members of Congress? Do you have any working knowledge of FISA? Have you ever actually worked on an itel gathering mission? Or are you basing this solely on the NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Al Jazeera.com?If the administration can't even offer a hypothetical situation where a program like this is necessary (and they haven't), that should tell you something.

[Jibby]

Refusing to give a simple answer a simple question?

THAT'S how you know someone was beat!Clinton is a better indicator.

[portisizzle]

For you maybe. But you're a mindless drone.

With three kids. I want the terrorists done away with. **** politics for a minute. Neo con this, Bushco that.

How about you consider the ramification of another 9/11. This President is going to do what he has to do to protect America. A Democrat would be doing the same.

All you are right now is sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.

[twa]

Well, even before her ruling any law like Specter's would have been unconstitutional, but her ruling makes that crystal clear and it's fresh in people's minds.

Absent her ruling they might have been able to get away with it, but not now.


I take a nap and see what happens :laugh:

First a stay has been issued on her ruling...in short her ruling has no effect till the court decides differently.

Second, We use precedents from court rulings to determine the constitutionality of laws and actions.
I mention this because every higher court has ruled the president has that right.
IE
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060826-101826-3688r.htm
FISA-established federal appeals court noted in a unanimous 2002 opinion that every court to consider the issue has "held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information" and concluded that "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Thirdly there are numerous exceptions to the 4th ,which you and a certain judge seem to ignore. :laugh:

[Jibby]

With three kids. I want the terrorists done away with. **** politics for a minute. Neo con this, Bushco that.

How about you consider the ramification of another 9/11. This President is going to do what he has to do to protect America. A Democrat would be doing the same.

All you are right now is sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.I've considered the consequences of another 9-11. What I've also considered though, which you apparantly have not, is who would actually be behind another 9-11.

[Popeman38]

If the administration can't even offer a hypothetical situation where a program like this is necessary (and they haven't), that should tell you something.
Exactly the reply I expected. Nothing but hot air aimed at an admin you hate. Perhaps you should move to a fascist country for a year. Then you will have something to compare how "horrible" Bush is. Oh, and I am not a fan of Bush. I just hate mindless rants that lack proof.

[portisizzle]

I've considered the consequences of another 9-11. What I've also considered though, which you apparantly have not, is who would actually be behind another 9-11.

:doh: Tell me who.

[Popeman38]

I've considered the consequences of another 9-11. What I've also considered though, which you apparantly have not, is who would actually be behind another 9-11.
So now Bush would be behind the next 9/11? You are absolutely unbelievable...

[Jibby]

Exactly the reply I expected. Nothing but hot air aimed at an admin you hate. Perhaps you should move to a fascist country for a year. Then you will have something to compare how "horrible" Bush is. Oh, and I am not a fan of Bush. I just hate mindless rants that lack proof.I'm sure if I stay here long enough, I'll get to experience true martial law.

[Jibby]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&hl=en

He was probably behind the first, I don't see why he wouldn't be behind another one.

FYI the possibility of this really scares me.

[BlueTalon]

So now Bush would be behind the next 9/11? You are absolutely unbelievable...
Now wait, let's not jump to conclusions here...



I've considered the consequences of another 9-11. What I've also considered though, which you apparantly have not, is who would actually be behind another 9-11.
OK, young Mr. Jibby, who do you think would be behind another 9/11?

[BlueTalon]

I'm sure if I stay here long enough, I'll get to experience true martial law.
Quick, go to France!

[Popeman38]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&hl=en

He was probably behind the first, I don't see why he wouldn't be behind another one.

FYI the possibility of this really scares me.
You just lost any credibility you had left.:(

[Jibby]

You just lost any credibility you had left.:(Thanks for letting me know. Only about half the country agrees the government has covered up the 9-11 truth.

[Larry]

Jibby,

Please, I'm making a request.

First, some background material, since I notice you seem new 'round here:

I'd be willing to bet that if a poll were taken of the folks on this board, nominating (their opinion of) The Five Most Blind Liberal People On This Board, I'd be on the list. (I'd suspect I'd be #2.) Among other things, I occasionally proudly point to being one of those dreaded Card Carrying Members of the ACLU.

I'd bet that a lot of folks here think of me as an irrational, delusional, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-american. (I'll plead guilty to "Bush-hating". :) )

And I'm asking you to drop the claims that Bush is targeting his political enemies, or that he's going to run for a third term, or any of that.

For one thing, your theories (and the countless people laughing at you) are making it difficult to discuss the Constitution of the United States, a subjetc I consider much more important.

For another reason, restricting your topic to the Constitution makes it a lot easier for you to win. (Or at least, to be right.)

By restricting yourself to the Constitution, you also restrict "your enemies" to that topic. (They'll try to bring up laws, or letters people wrote, or the Declaration, of their military experience, or whatever. But you can keep pointing out "The Constitution says . . . ")

(Another way to restrict the battlefield, so to speak, is the Nineth and Tenth Ammenements, which clearly state that if a power is not granted in the Constitution, then the government doesn't have that power.)

(In short, if Bush, or his supporters, want to argue their way past the Fourth, they either have to attack the word "unreasonable", or they have to find a part of the Constitution that says Bush can wiretap without a warrant.)

In addition, by staying on that point, it allows you to assume the role of The Defender of The Constitution, instead of The Loony Who Sees Black Helicopters.

[Popeman38]

Thanks for letting me know. Only about half the country agrees the government has covered up the 9-11 truth.
Actually, 33% is the latest number, and that includes the people that think Bush knew it was coming and failed to act. But you would know that since you are so well read. I have had enough of your baseless accusations. I have to work in the morning. Let me know when you get a clue...

[Jibby]

Jibby,

Please, I'm making a request.

First, some background material, since I notice you seem new 'round here:

I'd be willing to bet that if a poll were taken of the folks on this board, nominating (their opinion of) The Five Most Blind Liberal People On This Board, I'd be on the list. (I'd suspect I'd be #2.) Among other things, I occasionally proudly point to being one of those dreaded Card Carrying Members of the ACLU.

I'd bet that a lot of folks here think of me as an irrational, delusional, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-american. (I'll plead guilty to "Bush-hating". :) )

And I'm asking you to drop the claims that Bush is targeting his political enemies, or that he's going to run for a third term, or any of that.

For one thing, your theories (and the countless people laughing at you) are making it difficult to discuss the Constitution of the United States, a subjetc I consider much more important.

For another reason, restricting your topic to the Constitution makes it a lot easier for you to win. (Or at least, to be right.)

By restricting yourself to the Constitution, you also restrict "your enemies" to that topic. (They'll try to bring up laws, or letters people wrote, or the Declaration, of their military experience, or whatever. But you can keep pointing out "The Constitution says . . . ")

(Another way to restrict the battlefield, so to speak, is the Nineth and Tenth Ammenements, which clearly state that if a power is not granted in the Constitution, then the government doesn't have that power.)

(In short, if Bush, or his supporters, want to argue their way past the Fourth, they either have to attack the word "unreasonable", or they have to find a part of the Constitution that says Bush can wiretap without a warrant.)

In addition, by staying on that point, it allows you to assume the role of The Defender of The Constitution, instead of The Loony Who Sees Black Helicopters.I know I'm right, and I also know that any argument made here isn't important in any sense. I don't feel like limiting myself to anything, because there is just so much incredible criminal activity being committed by our rulers right now.

[Jibby]

Actually, 33% is the latest number, and that includes the people that think Bush knew it was coming and failed to act. But you would know that since you are so well read. I have had enough of your baseless accusations. I have to work in the morning. Let me know when you get a clue...It's above 40%. And rising.

[BlueTalon]

Thanks for letting me know. Only about half the country agrees the government has covered up the 9-11 truth.
I suppose that could be considered prima facia evidence that half the country is intellectually deficient, and we could start another thread discussing the role public education had in making them that way, but instead I'll just ask:

What truth?

[Jibby]

I suppose that could be considered prima facia evidence that half the country is intellectually deficient, and we could start another thread discussing the role public education had in making them that way, but instead I'll just ask:

What truth?Watch the video.

[Larry]

You have read? What have you read? Have you read any classified docs on the program? Have you sat in when the admin explained the program to select members of Congress? Do you have any working knowledge of FISA? Have you ever actually worked on an itel gathering mission? Or are you basing this solely on the NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Al Jazeera.com?

He's read the Constitution. Please remember that.

That's the only aspect of this entire discussion that's necessary. The discussion is: Does the President have the authority to wiretap (which is a search) without a warrant?

It doesn't say "unless somebody with a former security clearance says so".

(And, contrary to the standard litany of disclaimers of Why To Ignore The Constitution, it also doesn't say "except outside the US", or "only in time of peace", "except for suspected enemies", "new kind of war", "enemy combattant", "Presidential memo", or "fizbin".)

Now, I'll admit, the word "unreasonable" creates wiggle room.

But the issue can be discussed, in an informed manner, without any chest-thumping claims of Superiority.

[BlueTalon]

I know I'm right, and I also know that any argument made here isn't important in any sense. I don't feel like limiting myself to anything, because there is just so much incredible criminal activity being committed by our rulers right now.
Larry tilts decidedly left, but it is quite possible, and often entertaining/enlightening for me as one who tilts decidedly right to converse with him. You, on the other hand...

He's politely trying to tell you that you're embarrassing him by putting the "loony" in "loony left" and giving righties such as me the justification for thinking of lefties as loonies.

[Jibby]

Larry tilts decidedly left, but it is quite possible, and often entertaining/enlightening for me as one who tilts decidedly right to converse with him. You, on the other hand...

He's politely trying to tell you that you're embarrassing him by putting the "loony" in "loony left" and giving righties such as me the justification for thinking of lefties as loonies.Larry has nothing to do with me, just as I'd presume Joseph McCarthy has nothing to do with you, BT.

I'll express my views as I please.

[Jibby]

Now BT, watch the movie.

[Larry]

Sorry, guys, I tried.

Oh, well, it's not like a re-re-re-re-hashing of the Constitutionality of the Constitition was likely to change anybody's minds, anyway. I was just hoping to get a new vioce into the laters re-iteration.

Out before the close.

[BlueTalon]

Now BT, watch the movie.
I'll watch the movie if you'll read this (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf).

[Jibby]

I'll watch the movie if you'll read this (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf).I've actually already read that. It doesn't hold any water. They don't mention the steel at all. The seismic data is interesting, but they don't explain how two identical buildings fell at such different speeds. It's a bunch of equations, but it dodges the main questions because the answers to those questions are scary.

[nelms]

Sorry, guys, I tried.

Oh, well, it's not like a re-re-re-re-hashing of the Constitutionality of the Constitition was likely to change anybody's minds, anyway. I was just hoping to get a new vioce into the laters re-iteration.

Out before the close.
Larry, you don't have a monopoly on defending the U.S. Constitution. I am a firm believer of our Constitution. I just don't agree with your INTERPRETATION of it.

[Jibby]

Larry, you don't have a monopoly on defending the U.S. Constitution. I am a firm believer of our Constitution. I just don't agree with your INTERPRETATION of it.Do you agree that, to perform a lawful search, the government has to enumerate the places, people, and items to be searched and/or seized??

[twa]

Do you agree that, to perform a lawful search, the government has to enumerate the places, people, and items to be searched and/or seized??


I'll take that one ...NO

There are exceptions at the borders for persons,mail,computer discs.

There are exceptions for data mining(which your pet judge even endorsed)

There are exceptions at public transportation

There are exceptions for national security issues.


I could go on :rolleyes:

[PokerPacker]

guide on how to know you are a nut:

1) if liberals think you're a nut, you might be a nut
2) if conservatives think your a nut, you might be a nut
3) if independants think you're a nut, you might be a nut
4) if nuts think you're a nut, you might be a nut

[portisizzle]

guide on how to know you are a nut:

1) if liberals think you're a nut, you might be a nut
2) if conservatives think your a nut, you might be a nut
3) if independants think you're a nut, you might be a nut
4) if nuts think you're a nut, you might be a nut

SO who is the nut that thinks he is a nut?

[PokerPacker]

SO who is the nut that thinks he is a nut?
i don't know what you're talking about, i was just simply copy/pasted that guide from somewhere. i didn't create that about anyone :paranoid:

[JohnLockesGhost]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&hl=en

He was probably behind the first, I don't see why he wouldn't be behind another one.

FYI the possibility of this really scares me.

Hmmm, I watched the first 7 minutes. Pretty lame evidence.

Personally, I don't believe in conspiracies. Too many loose lips to keep such a huge secret.

Also (this is something I don't get about wacky libs), you have these crazy Islamic terrorists guys ADMITTING they did it. They say they'd do it again. They say they want to kill as many as possible. Are they lying? Why do you insist on NOT taking them at their word?

[Cdowwe]

Jibby = Chom?

[portisizzle]

Jibby = Chom?

I think Jibby is Chrome's alias when he is eating his home brew brownies.

[twa]

Jibby = Chom?

Chom has better arguments ,not to mention loooonger posts :D

[portisizzle]

Chom has better arguments ,not to mention loooonger posts :D


Chrome makes me mad, Jibby makes me laugh.

[Cdowwe]

Yea Chom's posts are longer, more thoughtout, and actually will respect your post, by dissecting every detail.

[skinz1972]

who cares?illegal is illegal,those who will give up FREEDOM for SAFETY deserve NEITHER freedom or safety

[PokerPacker]

hmm... when was extreme's last attempt at posting on here?

[twa]

who cares?illegal is illegal,those who will give up FREEDOM for SAFETY deserve NEITHER freedom or safety


You really should research the quotes you misquote...Ben F. would not approve :laugh:

[skinz1972]

You really should research the quotes you misquote...Ben F. would not approve :laugh:TWA,go research your.............................:2cents:

[Jibby]

Hmmm, I watched the first 7 minutes. Pretty lame evidence.

Personally, I don't believe in conspiracies. Too many loose lips to keep such a huge secret.

Also (this is something I don't get about wacky libs), you have these crazy Islamic terrorists guys ADMITTING they did it. They say they'd do it again. They say they want to kill as many as possible. Are they lying? Why do you insist on NOT taking them at their word?Osama said he didn't do it twice before releasing the infamous tape. If you actually watch that tape, you'll realize the man on it isn't actually Osama, but some dude with a fake beard.

I'm serious.

About the conspiracies, I agree with you generally, but in this instance the evidence is overwhelming. I suggest you watch the rest of the film.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Osama said he didn't do it twice before releasing the infamous tape. If you actually watch that tape, you'll realize the man on it isn't actually Osama, but some dude with a fake beard.

I'm serious.

About the conspiracies, I agree with you generally, but in this instance the evidence is overwhelming. I suggest you watch the rest of the film.

Overwhelming?

Ok, that's not Osama *sarc*. But even if I give you that point, why don't you believe the people who get on TV and say "America sucks. Americans suck. We want to kill them all."? Are they all actors too? What about the throngs of people with their signs and chants marching against the West?

Once again, this is what I don't get about people like you, why don't you take people at their word? Either everyone is lying or everyone is telling the truth. A lie this big wouldn't be able to survive.

[Midnight Judges]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&hl=en

He was probably behind the first, I don't see why he wouldn't be behind another one.

FYI the possibility of this really scares me.

Ho boy you are out there. W can't even speak freakin' English and you think he was behind the biggest conspiracy of all time. :doh:

I'll admit I am somewhat of a lefty so maybe you will listen to me: You've been had. You've been tricked. All that conspiracy crap is nonsense. Fantasy, if not lunacy.

You're still young (as am I) so it's not too late for you to get realistic. 9/11 conspiracies are not real. They're crap. They are not conducted on a scientific level, or an academic level (and yes I am aware there is a tiny group Profs out there with very dim futures who believe in this crap).

Most of the time when the right wing Republicans talk about the fringe left they are using straw man arguments and are full of it but you are unwittingly giving them all the ammunition they need.

[Jibby]

Ho boy you are out there. W can't even speak freakin' English and you think he was behind the biggest conspiracy of all time. :doh:

I'll admit I am somewhat of a lefty so maybe you will listen to me: You've been had. You've been tricked. All that conspiracy crap is nonsense. Fantasy, if not lunacy.

You're still young (as am I) so it's not too late for you to get realistic. 9/11 conspiracies are not real. They're crap. They are not conducted on a scientific level, or an academic level (and yes I am aware there is a tiny group Profs out there with very dim futures who believe in this crap).

Most of the time when the right wing Republicans talk about the fringe left they are using straw man arguments and are full of it but you are unwittingly giving them all the ammunition they need.Explain why you think it's all lunacy, or admit that you don't know much about it.

There are over 400 professors nationwide who believe this "crap". It's pure science. there isn't as much evidence as we'd like, but theres enough.

[Jibby]

Overwhelming?

Ok, that's not Osama *sarc*. But even if I give you that point, why don't you believe the people who get on TV and say "America sucks. Americans suck. We want to kill them all."? Are they all actors too? What about the throngs of people with their signs and chants marching against the West?

Once again, this is what I don't get about people like you, why don't you take people at their word? Either everyone is lying or everyone is telling the truth. A lie this big wouldn't be able to survive.I don't doubt that they're honest when they say they hate America. But they simply weren't capable and didn't have the access to do what happened on 9-11.

[PokerPacker]

Explain why you think it's all lunacy, or admit that you don't know much about it.

There are over 400 professors nationwide who believe this "crap". It's pure science. there isn't as much evidence as we'd like, but theres enough.
wow, 400 professors in the whole nation. that's alot. why, that's almost enough people to fill one-room school! i change my mind, you must be right. 9/11 was all bush's doing.

[Popeman38]

I don't doubt that they're honest when they say they hate America. But they simply weren't capable and didn't have the access to do what happened on 9-11.
Still going? Here is a hint: When both sides are telling you that you are wrong, chances are, you are wrong. 400 professors? Wow, I can't imagine that higher education would hire such free thinkers. Here is another hint: experience some life before you form your ideals; don't just take a professor(s) word for it, everyone has a bias...

[chomerics]

Osama said he didn't do it twice before releasing the infamous tape. If you actually watch that tape, you'll realize the man on it isn't actually Osama, but some dude with a fake beard.

I'm serious.

About the conspiracies, I agree with you generally, but in this instance the evidence is overwhelming. I suggest you watch the rest of the film.

Dude, you've been had, I am one of the resident "leftist" posters here, and even I know this is absolute crap.

The paper Talon showed was spot on, it lists each and every equation as to how the building collapsed, and the time domain in which it happened. I am a mechanical engineer, and yes, they are all valid equations, and the paper was correct.

I am sorry you believe in such nonsense, and I currently have the video on right now in the backround, if you REALLY have a hard time understanding that the truth, which is a bunch of sick people hijacked a few planes and smashed them into buildings, then I can help you out. Simply tell me where you are having trouble, and what issues you have with the common "theory" and tell me why you don't believe it. I will gladly, free of charge, offer my expertise in this area to you so you can get off this conspiracy bandwagon. You see, unfortunately people like myself, have some real good arguments to make against what is going on in this country. Every time a nitwit with a half baked conspirisy theory posts here, it hurts our credibility, and gives the righties yet another straw man to knock down. Believe me when I say you are hurting the cause much more then you are helping.

So in conclusion, I will tell you difinitively that the WTC was NOT brought down by explosives, and they were NOT wired. The only conspirisy theory I could even half heartedly say could even POSSIBLY be true, although the chances are remote, is that Bush was complacent in the attacks. He COULD have POSSIBLY known about the attacks, and did nothing to stop them but that is it.

PNAC advised it would take another Pearl Harbor to get the US to buy into an all out war in Iraq. So yes, you have everything set up for them to capitalize on. But to say they orchestrated something like this? Hell no, no freaking way they could pull something like this off. As soon as you accept the fact tht there are people in this world who want to kill us simply because we are American, the sooner you will understand HOW to beat them.

:2cents:

[Popeman38]

Chom, I can assure you no one associated this poster with you, or the more left POV. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out that your responses, though different in opinion, were at least valid and offered thoughts on the subject at hand. And they also answered the questions that were posed, unlike this poster...

[chomerics]

Chom, I can assure you no one associated this poster with you, or the more left POV. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out that your responses, though different in opinion, were at least valid and offered thoughts on the subject at hand. And they also answered the questions that were posed, unlike this poster...

Oh, I know, but I was just trying to see what his hangup was. He seemed pretty hell bent on it being "factual". I watched a little bit of it, and it is really a joke. He (the video author) did everything right in terms of analyzing the filmstrip, but who knows what the time synch was on the audio to begin with? Just because there is a noise on the audio portion does not offer evidence the towers were blown up, it could have been a car backfiring from 1/2 a mile away for cripes sakes. Occam's Razor should be used when ever possible ;)

On a side note, you know in Hollywood, when the directors have the cue thing they slap together before they start filming and say "action". . . well, that is to synch up the audio track with the video. They match the crack of the cue with the crack on the audio protion and vola you have synched sound. I think someone told that to me here ;)

My factoid for the day haha

[Midnight Judges]

Explain why you think it's all lunacy, or admit that you don't know much about it.

There are over 400 professors nationwide who believe this "crap". It's pure science. there isn't as much evidence as we'd like, but theres enough.

For one, the people subscribing to the 9/11 conspiracy have a preconcieved notion that they intend to prove (like christian scientists) whereas a scientific method would be to observe the facts and investigate the results to the fullest extent.

Go watch a 9/11 conspiracy movie and ask yourself: Do they have the discipline present all the facts in a scientific manner or do they only acknowledge the ones that support their pre-concieved notion? Do they have an explanation for the fact that dozens, if not hundreds of reputable people saw the plane hit the Pentagon? Did they even bother to interview any of those people?

Conspiracy theory is second nature for some people. It reared it's ugly head after Pearl Harbor and here we are 60 years later and still there is zero evidence that Roosevelt had prior knowledge.

[Jibby]

Still going? Here is a hint: When both sides are telling you that you are wrong, chances are, you are wrong. 400 professors? Wow, I can't imagine that higher education would hire such free thinkers. Here is another hint: experience some life before you form your ideals; don't just take a professor(s) word for it, everyone has a bias...I wonder how many people told Galileo he was wrong.

[Jibby]

Dude, you've been had, I am one of the resident "leftist" posters here, and even I know this is absolute crap.

The paper Talon showed was spot on, it lists each and every equation as to how the building collapsed, and the time domain in which it happened. I am a mechanical engineer, and yes, they are all valid equations, and the paper was correct.

I am sorry you believe in such nonsense, and I currently have the video on right now in the backround, if you REALLY have a hard time understanding that the truth, which is a bunch of sick people hijacked a few planes and smashed them into buildings, then I can help you out. Simply tell me where you are having trouble, and what issues you have with the common "theory" and tell me why you don't believe it. I will gladly, free of charge, offer my expertise in this area to you so you can get off this conspiracy bandwagon. You see, unfortunately people like myself, have some real good arguments to make against what is going on in this country. Every time a nitwit with a half baked conspirisy theory posts here, it hurts our credibility, and gives the righties yet another straw man to knock down. Believe me when I say you are hurting the cause much more then you are helping.

So in conclusion, I will tell you difinitively that the WTC was NOT brought down by explosives, and they were NOT wired. The only conspirisy theory I could even half heartedly say could even POSSIBLY be true, although the chances are remote, is that Bush was complacent in the attacks. He COULD have POSSIBLY known about the attacks, and did nothing to stop them but that is it.

PNAC advised it would take another Pearl Harbor to get the US to buy into an all out war in Iraq. So yes, you have everything set up for them to capitalize on. But to say they orchestrated something like this? Hell no, no freaking way they could pull something like this off. As soon as you accept the fact tht there are people in this world who want to kill us simply because we are American, the sooner you will understand HOW to beat them.

:2cents:How did the steel melt, and why was it still molten weeks after the 3 buildings collapsed??

[Jibby]

chom, another video for you. I'm glad you can at least watch them and not reject them outright like everyone else seems to.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones&hl=en

[Midnight Judges]

How did the steel melt, and why was it still molten weeks after the 3 buildings collapsed??

1. Jet fuel. Full tanks, remember?

2. Smoldering fire. Hell when I make a camp fire it could smolder for 12 hours, you don't think a gargantuan fire like that could smolder for quite a bit longer?

[Midnight Judges]

I wonder how many people told Galileo he was wrong.

and those people were not scientific, just like the conspiracy theory who's teet you are suckling. :D

BTW, sorry if I came out as mean-spirited before, I definitely try to focus on the issue at hand, not the poster.

[Jibby]

1. Jet fuel. Full tanks, remember?

2. Smoldering fire. Hell when I make a camp fire it could smolder for 12 hours, you don't think a gargantuan fire like that could smolder for quite a bit longer?Under Ideal conditions, fires fueled by hydrocarbons max out at around 1000 celsius.

Steel does not melt until 1500 celsius.

[BlueTalon]

How did the steel melt, and why was it still molten weeks after the 3 buildings collapsed??
The ruins were smoldering, but the steel wasn't molten.

[Jibby]

The ruins were smoldering, but the steel wasn't molten.Oh yes it was.

This picture was taken on September 27, 2001.

[chomerics]

How did the steel melt, and why was it still molten weeks after the 3 buildings collapsed??

The steel didn't "melt" it "softened". As you heat metal, it loses its structural integrety. You don't need to heat steel to the "melting point" it looses strength as you increase temperature.

As for finding "melted steel", that can occur with the tremendous pressures and heat that happened during the collapse. There was not "melted steel" 3 weeks later, it is nothing more then a myth. There is no way steel was still molten 3 weeks after the buildings collapsed. There COULD have been steel that melted DURING the collapse, because there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the buildings. But nothing that lasted for 3 weeks.

[Jibby]

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

I didn't say 3 weeks, I said weeks.

[chomerics]

Oh yes it was.

This picture was taken on September 27, 2001.

First, that is not a picture of molting steel. Second, you have no idea when it was taken and third, you don't know if the photograph was photoshoped or not. Just because it is on a website does not mean it is fact.

Accept the fact that people WANT you to believe Bush was behind 9-11, and then look for HOLES in their stories. Know before you go into one of these things that they WANT you to believe that 9-11 was an inside job, and try to disprove their theories. You can usually spot the problems right away, things like eye-witness testimony and what not. Look to see where THEY messed up, because there are plenty of holes, believe me.

If you are REALLY having problems with 9-11, tell me what bothers you and I can show you where the conspirisy theorists are full of it.

[BlueTalon]

Under Ideal conditions, fires fueled by hydrocarbons max out at around 1000 celsius.

Steel does not melt until 1500 celsius.
And what exactly is the point you are trying to make by stating this? Do you believe steel has to be heated to the point of liquification before it loses any strength?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there were explosives involved in bringing down the towers, how would that help your claim that steel was still molten after three weeks?

Have you ever seen a building being brought down with explosives? Externally, it's quite visible. There was no such externally visible evidence or indications of explosives, so what do you point to as evidence to support the idea?

[Jibby]

The steel didn't "melt" it "softened". As you heat metal, it loses its structural integrety. You don't need to heat steel to the "melting point" it looses strength as you increase temperature.

As for finding "melted steel", that can occur with the tremendous pressures and heat that happened during the collapse. There was not "melted steel" 3 weeks later, it is nothing more then a myth. There is no way steel was still molten 3 weeks after the buildings collapsed. There COULD have been steel that melted DURING the collapse, because there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the buildings. But nothing that lasted for 3 weeks.Are you aware that evaporated steel was found?? Not merely softened, not even melted. EVAPORATED.

Watch the second video I posted.

[BlueTalon]

I didn't say 3 weeks, I said weeks.
My bad. You mentioned 3 buildings, and I mixed it up.

[chomerics]

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

I didn't say 3 weeks, I said weeks.

I have to leave work now, but I can guarentee you there is absolutely nothing to the claim that steel was at its melting point weeks after the collapse. I will check out your link later, but trust me when I tell you that it is a crock of schiza

[Jibby]

First, that is not a picture of molting steel. Second, you have no idea when it was taken and third, you don't know if the photograph was photoshoped or not. Just because it is on a website does not mean it is fact.

Accept the fact that people WANT you to believe Bush was behind 9-11, and then look for HOLES in their stories. Know before you go into one of these things that they WANT you to believe that 9-11 was an inside job, and try to disprove their theories. You can usually spot the problems right away, things like eye-witness testimony and what not. Look to see where THEY messed up, because there are plenty of holes, believe me.

If you are REALLY having problems with 9-11, tell me what bothers you and I can show you where the conspirisy theorists are full of it.I've looked for holes. Believe me, I've read everything I can find on the topic, and reached my conclusion independently. Have you done the same??

That picture has a well known history. It's not the only one.

[Jibby]

I have to leave work now, but I can guarentee you there is absolutely nothing to the claim that steel was at its melting point weeks after the collapse. I will check out your link later, but trust me when I tell you that it is a crock of schizaYou'll have to offer specific reasons, I don't trust anyone. I do my own research.

[Larry]

I wonder how many people told Galileo he was wrong.

I wonder how many people "they" told were wrong, who were wrong.

[Jibby]

And what exactly is the point you are trying to make by stating this? Do you believe steel has to be heated to the point of liquification before it loses any strength?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there were explosives involved in bringing down the towers, how would that help your claim that steel was still molten after three weeks?

Have you ever seen a building being brought down with explosives? Externally, it's quite visible. There was no such externally visible evidence or indications of explosives, so what do you point to as evidence to support the idea?To address your first point, the WTC towers were built to withstand over 10 times their maximum load -bearing weight. That steel softening a bit wouldn't have been enough, and even if it had, the building would have toppled over where the fires were and not collapsed as it did. The steel at the very bottom of the building would not have been altered at all.

To address your second point, just watch the secondd video I posted.

To address your third point:

[BlueTalon]

Are you aware that evaporated steel was found?? Not merely softened, not even melted. EVAPORATED.

Watch the second video I posted.
Look, when I compare the relative scholarship of the author of the engineering paper explaining how the towers came down, and of the producers of the video, I'm left to conclude that they'll say anything, and that you'll believe anything.

I'm not watching any more of your videos until you read that paper I linked to. I know you didn't read it before, because you said "They don't mention the steel at all." Yet on page 19, there is this:

While this may have been a contributing factor, I do not believe that we need to invoke anything as extreme as the melting of structural steel in the WTC to explain why the towers collapsed. The smoky appearance of the fires suggests that the flames inside each tower were fuel-rich and therefore probably below 900` C. In addition, the structural steel was heated indirectly and entire columns probably never attained temperatures much above 750` C. Nevertheless, ~20% loss of strength is to be expected for steel heated to 550` C, a temperature that may have been reached by some WTC core columns.

You might have looked at it, you might even have skimmed it, but you didn't read it.

[Jibby]

Look, when I compare the relative scholarship of the author of the engineering paper explaining how the towers came down, and of the producers of the video, I'm left to conclude that they'll say anything, and that you'll believe anything.

I'm not watching any more of your videos until you read that paper I linked to. I know you didn't read it before, because you said "They don't mention the steel at all." Yet on page 19, there is this:


You might have looked at it, you might even have skimmed it, but you didn't read it.Look buddy. You say there was no molten steel, I show you a picture of moleten steel.

You say there is no external evidence of explosives, I show you a picture of squibs just like any other demolition.

I know what I'm talking about. And I told you I've already read that paper. If you want to attack me or others because the subject matter is too uncomfortable, fine, it's expected. But don't think I don't know EXACTLY why you're doing that.

[BlueTalon]

To address your third point:
You say there is no external evidence of explosives, I show you a picture of squibs just like any other demolition.
Those plumes in that picture are not the result of explosives taking down the building. In other words, they are NOT "squibs just like any other demolition." Escaping gases are going to take the path of least resistance, and those plumes are likely just the result of a bellows effect resulting in a sudden increase in pressure, escaping through the weakest parts of the exterior.

You need to watch some videos of buildings being taken down by explosives, and compare them with that picture. Even if that plume was a "squib", it's certainly not "just like any other demolition."

[Jibby]

Those plumes in that picture are not the result of explosives taking down the building. In other words, they are NOT "squibs just like any other demolition." Escaping gases are going to take the path of least resistance, and those plumes are likely just the result of a bellows effect resulting in a sudden increase in pressure, escaping through the weakest parts of the exterior.

You need to watch some videos of buildings being taken down by explosives, and compare them with that picture. Even if that plume was a "squib", it's certainly not "just like any other demolition."How are the gases bellowing out 25 or so floors below where the collapse is occuring, ahead of where the falling debris even is????

I haven't even gotten into building 7 yet.

www.wtc7.net (http://www.wtc7.net)

[BlueTalon]

And I told you I've already read that paper.
And you obviously overstated -- otherwise, you wouldn't have said that it didn't address the steel, when it addressed it very directly.

[Jibby]

And you obviously overstated -- otherwise, you wouldn't have said that it didn't address the steel, when it addressed it very directly.It didn't address the molten steel found weeks after 9-11.

[Jibby]

This video is fun

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=wtc7&hl=en

[Jibby]

Here is building 7 being demolished. You can see multiple windows blown out simultaneously.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5653955826753385916&q=wtc7&hl=en

[BlueTalon]

How are the gases bellowing out 25 or so floors below where the collapse is occuring, ahead of where the falling debris even is????
The entire building was in the process of coming down. The plumes were in relatively close proximity to the damaged sections, but far enough away that the gases didn't escape through the holes already created by the planes.

Notice what you don't see: you don't see any sequential explosions. You don't see those plumes happening simultaneously with thousands of similar plumes in geometrically symetrical patterns. You don't see any flashes. You don't see anything at all until the building comes down of it's own accord.


This whole explosives stuff would make sense if the towers had managed to stay standing for days, and they decided that they were too structurally compromised to be safe for continued use. But to claim that explosives were used to bring down the towers coincidentally on the day that terrorists hijacked four planes and drove three of them into buildings, that takes a predisposition to want to believe the conspiracy.

[Jibby]

The entire building was in the process of coming down. The plumes were in relatively close proximity to the damaged sections, but far enough away that the gases didn't escape through the holes already created by the planes.

Notice what you don't see: you don't see any sequential explosions. You don't see those plumes happening simultaneously with thousands of similar plumes in geometrically symetrical patterns. You don't see any flashes. You don't see anything at all until the building comes down of it's own accord.


This whole explosives stuff would make sense if the towers had managed to stay standing for days, and they decided that they were too structurally compromised to be safe for continued use. But to claim that explosives were used to bring down the towers coincidentally on the day that terrorists hijacked four planes and drove three of them into buildings, that takes a predisposition to want to believe the conspiracy.In that photograph I gave you, there are two plumes coming out from the exact same floor, about 25 floors below where the building is falling.

You keep walking right into these.

[Jibby]

Here's more on building 7, which by the way, was completely ignored by the 9-11 commission.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063&q=wtc7&hl=en

[BlueTalon]

In that photograph I gave you, there are two plumes coming out from the exact same floor, about 25 floors below where the building is falling.

You keep walking right into these.
Two is not thousands. It's not even hundreds. At 21, I don't expect you to have the education of Chomerics, but you should at least know that much.

And until you have something resembling Chomeric's education, I recommend paying attention to his engineering expertise. You're way out of your depth, and just making yourself look silly.

If you want to continue to talk about the WTC towers, conspiracy, or anything like that, start a new thread. This one has been hijacked enough as it is.

End of :ot:


And I still think the key part of the 4th amendment in this context is the word "unreasonable." But I also think it doesn't directly apply, as there are no "places" being "searched", and no "persons or things" being "seized."

[Jibby]

Also BT, there are flashes. If you watched that first video I posted, there are white flashes visible during the second collapse in the dust cloud.

[Jibby]

Two is not thousands. It's not even hundreds. At 21, I don't expect you to have the education of Chomerics, but you should at least know that much.

And until you have something resembling Chomeric's education, I recommend paying attention to his engineering expertise. You're way out of your depth, and just making yourself look silly.

If you want to continue to talk about the WTC towers, conspiracy, or anything like that, start a new thread. This one has been hijacked enough as it is.

End of :ot:


And I still think the key part of the 4th amendment in this context is the word "unreasonable." But I also think it doesn't directly apply, as there are no "places" being "searched", and no "persons or things" being "seized."Chom hasn't offered any reasons for why I should agree with him other than "I'm smart, you should trust me."

Sorry, I'm smart too, and I've done my research. Nothing against chom, but I need a heck of a lot more than that.

[Midnight Judges]

For one, the people subscribing to the 9/11 conspiracy have a preconcieved notion that they intend to prove (like christian scientists) whereas a scientific method would be to observe the facts and investigate the results to the fullest extent.

Go watch a 9/11 conspiracy movie and ask yourself: Do they have the discipline present all the facts in a scientific manner or do they only acknowledge the ones that support their pre-concieved notion? Do they have an explanation for the fact that dozens, if not hundreds of reputable people saw the plane hit the Pentagon? Did they even bother to interview any of those people?

Conspiracy theory is second nature for some people. It reared it's ugly head after Pearl Harbor and here we are 60 years later and still there is zero evidence that Roosevelt had prior knowledge.

Jibby, you are reading every post here but I'm not convinced you are really taking the time to think about what everyone is saying (dono't blame you this has become a mammoth of a thread). And if you are, you seem to be exhibiting a widespread human behavior indicated in this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

That is to say, a partisanship-like behavior is stopping your brain from functioning properly. Facts against you roll off like they were nothing, while facts in your favor are all you choose (could be unconsciously) to focus on.

[Jibby]

Jibby, you are reading every post here but I'm not convinced you are really taking the time to think about what everyone is saying (dono't blame you this has become a mammoth of a thread). And if you are, you seem to be exhibiting a widespread human behavior indicated in this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

That is to say, a partisanship-like behavior is stopping your brain from functioning properly. Facts against you roll off like they were nothing, while facts in your favor are all you choose (could be unconsciously) to focus on.Nobody has bothered adressing the facts I have presented. I've addressed the few facts presented to me. If you think I haven't, show me.

Thanks.

[chomerics]

Chom hasn't offered any reasons for why I should agree with him other than "I'm smart, you should trust me."

Sorry, I'm smart too, and I've done my research. Nothing against chom, but I need a heck of a lot more than that.

I asked you what your problems were. The "plume" of smoke coming out of the windows? It is exactly what Talon said. Listen to him, he is sopt on with everything he has said, and I normally don;t agree with him here.

I'm sorry that you got sucked in by a bunch of loony nutjobs, but I am trying to educate you on the issue. So here, is another little tid bit. . .

The WTC was a "shell" building, or in other words, it was a building based on just a "skin" and the structure itsels was the outside of the building. Picture a big pipe, with a bunch of "floors" inside the pipe. How do you expect it to collapse? Do you expect it to fall over? No, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to collapse is to pancake on itself.

Here is what they are not telling you, when one floor falls on top of the one below it, you now have two floors of force falling on the third etc etc. In between these floors of concrete you have a massive amount of air which is being squeezed out bu the floors pancaking on each other. That is how you get the "plumes". The floors are forcing the air, along with everything else that is flamable, to "bellow" outside the windows. Until the floors hit a set poing below, you will not see the collapse, and this is because of the way the structure was built.

I am sorry you were taken in by these nutjobs, but there is absolutely NO and I repeat NO scientific credibility to thier wacky theories. They lie constantly in order to dupe people, like yourself, into thinking something is there that is not. Why do they do this? I don't know, most likely for attention, why do people say they were abducted by aliens?

I suggest you learn a bit of Occams Razor and learn to live with its premise. It will stop you making foolish threads like the other one I see you;ve already started. Again, I am not attacking you, just trying to knock some sense into your head and let you know that you;ve been had. IT's ok, it happens to a lot of people, but unfortunately some people actually believe anything they want to, just because it is what they are looking for. I would hope that you can discern the difference between looking at the evidence and coming up with a conclusion, rather then coming up with a conclusion, then looking at evidence to support your premise.

[Midnight Judges]

Chom hasn't offered any reasons for why I should agree with him other than "I'm smart, you should trust me."


That is simply false.


The steel didn't "melt" it "softened". As you heat metal, it loses its structural integrety. You don't need to heat steel to the "melting point" it looses strength as you increase temperature.

As for finding "melted steel", that can occur with the tremendous pressures and heat that happened during the collapse. There was not "melted steel" 3 weeks later, it is nothing more then a myth. There is no way steel was still molten 3 weeks after the buildings collapsed. There COULD have been steel that melted DURING the collapse, because there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the buildings. But nothing that lasted for 3 weeks.

..at which point you decided to change subjects from molten steel to "evaporated steel."


The paper Talon showed was spot on, it lists each and every equation as to how the building collapsed, and the time domain in which it happened. I am a mechanical engineer, and yes, they are all valid equations, and the paper was correct.


Then he offered to verify equations listed in the paper bluetalon provided. You glossed over them and BT proved that you really did not read the paper. And if you did, you read it it the partisan manner illustrated in the link I provided. That is to say, you did not read the article and reason on it. You did not take it in. You chose not to comprehend it for whatever reason (subconsiously?).

[Sarge]

I asked you what your problems were. The "plume" of smoke coming out of the windows? It is exactly what Talon said. Listen to him, he is sopt on with everything he has said, and I normally don;t agree with him here.

I'm sorry that you got sucked in by a bunch of loony nutjobs, but I am trying to educate you on the issue. So here, is another little tid bit. . .

The WTC was a "shell" building, or in other words, it was a building based on just a "skin" and the structure itsels was the outside of the building. Picture a big pipe, with a bunch of "floors" inside the pipe. How do you expect it to collapse? Do you expect it to fall over? No, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to collapse is to pancake on itself.

Here is what they are not telling you, when one floor falls on top of the one below it, you now have two floors of force falling on the third etc etc. In between these floors of concrete you have a massive amount of air which is being squeezed out bu the floors pancaking on each other. That is how you get the "plumes". The floors are forcing the air, along with everything else that is flamable, to "bellow" outside the windows. Until the floors hit a set poing below, you will not see the collapse, and this is because of the way the structure was built.

I am sorry you were taken in by these nutjobs, but there is absolutely NO and I repeat NO scientific credibility to thier wacky theories. They lie constantly in order to dupe people, like yourself, into thinking something is there that is not. Why do they do this? I don't know, most likely for attention, why do people say they were abducted by aliens?

I suggest you learn a bit of Occams Razor and learn to live with its premise. It will stop you making foolish threads like the other one I see you;ve already started. Again, I am not attacking you, just trying to knock some sense into your head and let you know that you;ve been had. IT's ok, it happens to a lot of people, but unfortunately some people actually believe anything they want to, just because it is what they are looking for. I would hope that you can discern the difference between looking at the evidence and coming up with a conclusion, rather then coming up with a conclusion, then looking at evidence to support your premise.


I....................agree?!?!?!

What the hell is going on here? :laugh:

[Jibby]

I asked you what your problems were. The "plume" of smoke coming out of the windows? It is exactly what Talon said. Listen to him, he is sopt on with everything he has said, and I normally don;t agree with him here.

I'm sorry that you got sucked in by a bunch of loony nutjobs, but I am trying to educate you on the issue. So here, is another little tid bit. . .

The WTC was a "shell" building, or in other words, it was a building based on just a "skin" and the structure itsels was the outside of the building. Picture a big pipe, with a bunch of "floors" inside the pipe. How do you expect it to collapse? Do you expect it to fall over? No, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to collapse is to pancake on itself.

Here is what they are not telling you, when one floor falls on top of the one below it, you now have two floors of force falling on the third etc etc. In between these floors of concrete you have a massive amount of air which is being squeezed out bu the floors pancaking on each other. That is how you get the "plumes". The floors are forcing the air, along with everything else that is flamable, to "bellow" outside the windows. Until the floors hit a set poing below, you will not see the collapse, and this is because of the way the structure was built.

I am sorry you were taken in by these nutjobs, but there is absolutely NO and I repeat NO scientific credibility to thier wacky theories. They lie constantly in order to dupe people, like yourself, into thinking something is there that is not. Why do they do this? I don't know, most likely for attention, why do people say they were abducted by aliens?

I suggest you learn a bit of Occams Razor and learn to live with its premise. It will stop you making foolish threads like the other one I see you;ve already started. Again, I am not attacking you, just trying to knock some sense into your head and let you know that you;ve been had. IT's ok, it happens to a lot of people, but unfortunately some people actually believe anything they want to, just because it is what they are looking for. I would hope that you can discern the difference between looking at the evidence and coming up with a conclusion, rather then coming up with a conclusion, then looking at evidence to support your premise.The WTC were certainly not shell buildings. I encourage you to do some research. You will find that around 70% of the strength of the building was based in huindreds of steel beams in the very center of the building. The outer steel structure only accounted for 30% or so.

[Jibby]

That is simply false.



..at which point you decided to change subjects from molten steel to "evaporated steel."



Then he offered to verify equations listed in the paper bluetalon provided. You glossed over them and BT proved that you really did not read the paper. And if you did, you read it it the partisan manner illustrated in the link I provided. That is to say, you did not read the article and reason on it. You did not take it in. You chose not to comprehend it for whatever reason (subconsiously?).The paper mentioned nothing about why molten steel dripped from the buildings prior to its collapse, or why molten steel was found weeks after the collapse in the rubble. I explained this.

[Sarge]

Anyway, I think it's time for jibby to be wiretapped

[Jibby]

Anyway, I think it's time for jibby to be wiretappedI probably already am, don't worry.

[PokerPacker]

I....................agree?!?!?!

What the hell is going on here? :laugh:
it appears that either someone is farther to the left than chom, making it appear as if you agree, ore maybe someone is crazier than either of you two, making you both seem sane. either way, its just an illusion. pay no attention to it.

[Sarge]

I probably already am, don't worry.


Oh I know you are. See, I work for the government. So does Chom.

We're watching :paranoid:

[Jibby]

Oh I know you are. See, I work for the government. So does Chom.

We're watching :paranoid:I'm well aware, believe me.

[Sarge]

I'm well aware, believe me.

Be sure to check your alarm clock

[Jibby]

Be sure to check your alarm clockIs that a threat?

[Sarge]

Is that a threat?

Just a suggestion. You wouldn't believe where devices can be planted nowadays. Check the latch/doorknob of your abode. The heat from your skin activates the listening devices.

Remember, we're from the government. We're here to help you

[PokerPacker]

Just a suggestion. You wouldn't believe where devices can be planted nowadays. Check the latch/doorknob of your abode. The heat from your skin actives the listening devices.

Remember, we're from the government. We're here to help you
that actually sounded more like a mental farm. although you wouldn't be far off base with that either.

[Sarge]

that actually sounded more like a mental farm. although you wouldn't be far off base with that either.

Oh, we have those too ;)

[Sarge]

it appears that either someone is farther to the left than chom, making it appear as if you agree, ore maybe someone is crazier than either of you two, making you both seem sane. either way, its just an illusion. pay no attention to it.

Thanks! I was worried there for a minute :laugh:

[chomerics]

The WTC were certainly not shell buildings. I encourage you to do some research. You will find that around 70% of the strength of the building was based in huindreds of steel beams in the very center of the building. The outer steel structure only accounted for 30% or so.

The WTC was ABSOLUTELY a shell building, and sorry but I DID do my research on it. THey were innovative buildings for the time. Instead of the traditional building methods, they used the outer "shell" as support, and the inner core was the section that took up the loads. It was a very innovative and interesting building technique, maybe if you would take the time to listed to some people who are offering advice, you will see that you are wrong.


What the twin towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

You see, people in the field actually know what they are talking about. So tell me how does a building like this collapse? Hmmmm, maybe by pancaking? Just like I said it would.

So there are the facts about HOW the building collapsed, now how about you get some so-called "facts" to back up your asanine clamis.

as for your "molten metal", you did nothing to solidify your claims, you in fact ignored the points made.

[Jibby]

The WTC was ABSOLUTELY a shell building, and sorry but I DID do my research on it. THey were innovative buildings for the time. Instead of the traditional building methods, they used the outer "shell" as support, and the inner core was the section that took up the loads. It was a very innovative and interesting building technique, maybe if you would take the time to listed to some people who are offering advice, you will see that you are wrong.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

You see, people in the field actually know what they are talking about. So tell me how does a building like this collapse? Hmmmm, maybe by pancaking? Just like I said it would.

So there are the facts about HOW the building collapsed, now how about you get some so-called "facts" to back up your asanine clamis.

as for your "molten metal", you did nothing to solidify your claims, you in fact ignored the points made.How is it a shell building if 70%+ of the load is carried by huge steel beams in the center??

[Jibby]

Chom, how would this huge center structure "pancake"?

Steel doesn't "pancake".

[Larry]

End of :ot: (Did you really expect that to work?)


And I still think the key part of the 4th amendment in this context is the word "unreasonable." But I also think it doesn't directly apply, as there are no "places" being "searched", and no "persons or things" being "seized."

Unfortunately, your reasoning runs up against the same problem that the "The Constitution doesn't apply to (insert excuse)" crowd. Specifically:


Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that says is that just because "data mining" isn't mentioned here, doesn't mean that the Givernment can do it. It means the government can't do it.

(Same problem with the claims that the Constitution doesn't apply overseas. If the Constitution doesn't apply "over there", then it doesn't ean the government has unlimited power. It means it has none.)

(The folks who're claiming "The Constitution doesn't apply to . . . " are really saying "all of the parts that give rights to the people, or prohibit things to the government, don't apply to . . . ")

(Now, I do believe that "reasonable" has some room. I think, for example, that searching people getting on a plane isn't "probable cause", but it is "reasonable".) (Well, except for the "confiscate all fingernail clippers" part.)

[twa]

Unfortunately, your reasoning runs up against the same problem that the "The Constitution doesn't apply to (insert excuse)" crowd. Specifically:



What that says is that just because "data mining" isn't mentioned here, doesn't mean that the Givernment can do it. It means the government can't do it.

The rulings of the courts say data mining is legal, even the recent District judges ruling...Are the Courts wrong?

(Same problem with the claims that the Constitution doesn't apply overseas. If the Constitution doesn't apply "over there", then it doesn't ean the government has unlimited power. It means it has none.)

SCOTUS ruled in 1990(after FISA) The Supreme Court in the 1990 Verdugo case held the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to "actions of the federal government against aliens outside of the United States territory."

Are they wrong?

(The folks who're claiming "The Constitution doesn't apply to . . . " are really saying "all of the parts that give rights to the people, or prohibit things to the government, don't apply to . . . ")

the Supreme Court noted in Haig v. Agee in 1981, it is "obvious and unarguable" that no "governmental interest" is more compelling than "the security of the nation."

the FISA-established federal appeals court noted in a unanimous 2002 opinion that every court to consider the issue has "held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information" and concluded that "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Are they wrong too?

(Now, I do believe that "reasonable" has some room. I think, for example, that searching people getting on a plane isn't "probable cause", but it is "reasonable".) (Well, except for the "confiscate all fingernail clippers" part.)

In Von Raab, as in other cases, the court emphasized "the probable-cause standard is peculiarly related to criminal investigations," and quoted with approval a 1974 opinion on passenger searches at airports: "When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness." As September 11, 2001, attacks demonstrated, modern terrorist attacks can easily cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damages.


Perhaps we need to address these courts going against the constitution??? ;)

All this from one article that everyone should read. :2cents:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060826-101826-3688r.htm

Not picking on you,just glad to be back OT :D

Another good read:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/033106turner.html