| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Headhunter wrote: | So I suppose that you believe that Building 7 fell in .5 seconds faster than absolute free fall in a vacuum, uniformly, and directly into it's own footprint, as a result of scattered fires?
Who's in la-la land? |
You are, if you believe any of the rubbish you wrote above. But of course you are just demonstrating the total disregard for truth common amongst the laughably named "truthseekers" and the total lack of reason; do what you like with controlled demolition, you would need rockets on the roof to get a building to fall faster than freefall. Or perhaps you think Judy Woods' "directed energy weapon" pushed it down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwhacker my friend, you throw away all right to chide people over "reason" when you claim Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition, even in the absence of any plausible replacement theory you still believe that just becausethat is the "official" line.
Believe what you like but don't play the rationalist and at the same time completley ignore all empirical evidence relating to building 7.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Bushwhacker my friend, you throw away all right to chide people over "reason" when you claim Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition, even in the absence of any plausible replacement theory you still believe that just becausethat is the "official" line.
Believe what you like but don't play the rationalist and at the same time completley ignore all empirical evidence relating to building 7. |
The empirical evidence being "it looked like it" to people with no experience of controlled demolitions watching a video! (Oh, and of course one experienced man, given false information) There is nothing else, is there?
We await the report from NIST about WTC7, then we might all be better informed. But we do know that to the experienced firefighters actually there on the day, there was nothing surprising about it at all, they expected it to collapse.
However, what I was actually labelling as rubbish were the statements that it fell faster than freefall, that it fell into its own footprint, and that it was subject to only scattered fires. None of these statements are true, as I am sure we all know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | The empirical evidence being "it looked like it" to people with no experience of controlled demolitions watching a video! (Oh, and of course one experienced man, given false information) There is nothing else, is there?
We await the report from NIST about WTC7, then we might all be better informed. But we do know that to the experienced firefighters actually there on the day, there was nothing surprising about it at all, they expected it to collapse.
However, what I was actually labelling as rubbish were the statements that it fell faster than freefall, that it fell into its own footprint, and that it was subject to only scattered fires. None of these statements are true, as I am sure we all know. |
NIST used the empirical evidence in conjunction with the plans of the building to show which beams failed in which order. They failed to make a stab at cause in that "update" and I find humour in your never-ending wait (6 years is not suspicious to you) for them to explain how debris damage (no where near the beams which failed first, nowhere near the rest of the beams which failed simulteaneously) or scattered fires (yes scattered fires, your "debunking" of this is to show a big cloud of smoke, if this is all you have I'll send you a photo from over my garden fence next time I have a barbeque and see if you buy the idea that the barbeque is the same width as the cloud is when it's getting started) caused this.
Empirical evidence is paramount to NIST as it is to anyone else in this case as the complete remains were not preserved for forensic reconstruction. Every feature of the collapse we see conforms to controlled demolition. There is absolutley no reason offered to believe it is anything else except a fanatical obedience to authority.
And the "the fire fighters thought it was going to collapse" bull is not going to fly- what exactly do you mean by this? If george bush was found with his head severed one day and the official story was that it fell off in the breeze would "oh he had a sore neck the day before, we're all surprised it didn't fall off sooner" sit right with you as "evidence" of anything at all?
Your attempts to say the building did not fall into it's own footprint because the debris spread a few metres in each direction after the fact is as laughable; anyone who wants to go onto youtube or google video can see it falling straight down. You could even see this and end your madness if you wanted, but that is sadly unlikely. |
The reason the building spread no more than a few metres when it fell is because it was surrounded by other buildings, so it could go no further, but it tried its best. Below are photos of rubble piled up against the Verizon building:
and here is 30 West Broadway
I am sorry you dismiss what the firefighters say as "bull" Of course they don't have your advantages of being able to watch a video on YouTube and decide that the building could not have come down from the fires which had been burning within it for 7 hours, the poor mutts were only there, with their experience of fires all their working lives, and they thought it was all on fire, and was going to fall, but of course you know better.
1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with
fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110081.PDF
2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and
fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110447.PDF
3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command
post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor.........
4. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World
Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
5. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody
was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110222.PDF
6. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was
burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pd f page 48.
7. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain
Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly
damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the
collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110462.PDF
8. They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to
the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse
and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110246.PDF
9. Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World
Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site
safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110382.PDF
10. I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely
going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way,
everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that. –Firefighter
Edward Kennedy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110502.PDF
11. .............when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders
and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut
down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's
about it. –Chief Frank Cruthers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110179.PDF
12. "Then we were just hanging out watching building 7 ready to go." –Firefighter Steve Piccerill
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110330.PDF
There are a dozen, there are plenty more but of course they will not convince you, you have seen the video, so you know the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
Welcome back, marky, you weren't gone long, were you?
No, the quotes from the firemen do not prove that CD did not take place. However, the only evidence for CD is that "it looked like it" to people watching the video on their computers, so the fact that the firemen who were actually there were expecting the building to collapse shows that it was not so surprising, and there are quotes from people who saw that it was deforming before it fell. The point is that to the people who were actually there, it did not look like CD, only to those watching their computer screens. There really is more to life than what can be shown on a screen. Also the quotes show that there were a lot more than scattered fires, as Headhunter said. Yes, the way it fell does not prove it was or was not CD either, I was answering the claim that it fell in its own footprint, which it did not. We can tell the damage to the buildings beside it was owing to WTC7 because it is WTC7 debris piled up against them. The second Verizon picture shows clearly recognisable framing, not from the towers, leaning up against it. These pictures are not showing up at the moment, but can be seen here
Why do you say the fires were not that bad, and could be put out when the firemen thought they were bad, as shown by the quotes? Just look at the first five quotes. Do you think you know better than the firemen by looking at your computer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
Welcome back, marky, you weren't gone long, were you?
No, the quotes from the firemen do not prove that CD did not take place. However, the only evidence for CD is that "it looked like it" to people watching the video on their computers, so the fact that the firemen who were actually there were expecting the building to collapse shows that it was not so surprising, and there are quotes from people who saw that it was deforming before it fell. The point is that to the people who were actually there, it did not look like CD, only to those watching their computer screens. There really is more to life than what can be shown on a screen. Also the quotes show that there were a lot more than scattered fires, as Headhunter said. Yes, the way it fell does not prove it was or was not CD either, I was answering the claim that it fell in its own footprint, which it did not. We can tell the damage to the buildings beside it was owing to WTC7 because it is WTC7 debris piled up against them. The second Verizon picture shows clearly recognisable framing, not from the towers, leaning up against it. These pictures are not showing up at the moment, but can be seen here
Why do you say the fires were not that bad, and could be put out when the firemen thought they were bad, as shown by the quotes? Just look at the first five quotes. Do you think you know better than the firemen by looking at your computer? |
nope i wasnt gone long i kept getting emails saying there was a message and could'nt help asking questions or feeling i need to explain ect.
i carnt be bothered with the circlar debate of this because we had a go it not long ago and it will be repeating itself again and it get s a bit boring when we disagree and go over the same ground. so if we should'nt believe what we see on our computer screens does that mean we should only believe whats on our computer screen if it toes the offical lie? line even? and are firemen only important at wtc7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
And bear in mind the debris up against the Verizon building was not exterior wall of WTC7, it was braced framing from the interior of the building
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
Welcome back, marky, you weren't gone long, were you?
No, the quotes from the firemen do not prove that CD did not take place. However, the only evidence for CD is that "it looked like it" to people watching the video on their computers, so the fact that the firemen who were actually there were expecting the building to collapse shows that it was not so surprising, and there are quotes from people who saw that it was deforming before it fell. The point is that to the people who were actually there, it did not look like CD, only to those watching their computer screens. There really is more to life than what can be shown on a screen. Also the quotes show that there were a lot more than scattered fires, as Headhunter said. Yes, the way it fell does not prove it was or was not CD either, I was answering the claim that it fell in its own footprint, which it did not. We can tell the damage to the buildings beside it was owing to WTC7 because it is WTC7 debris piled up against them. The second Verizon picture shows clearly recognisable framing, not from the towers, leaning up against it. These pictures are not showing up at the moment, but can be seen here
Why do you say the fires were not that bad, and could be put out when the firemen thought they were bad, as shown by the quotes? Just look at the first five quotes. Do you think you know better than the firemen by looking at your computer? |
nope i wasnt gone long i kept getting emails saying there was a message and could'nt help asking questions or feeling i need to explain ect.
i carnt be bothered with the circlar debate of this because we had a go it not long ago and it will be repeating itself again and it get s a bit boring when we disagree and go over the same ground. so if we should'nt believe what we see on our computer screens does that mean we should only believe whats on our computer screen if it toes the offical lie? line even? and are firemen only important at wtc7? |
marky, marky, I did not say you should not believe what is on your computer screen, I said that it is not the be all and end all, you have to look at other evidence. Just because there seem to be no photos of WTC7 showing the damage caused by the towers does not mean there was none, for instance. Experienced people who were there in person must be relied on more than amateurs giving their opinion after watching the events on video. Of course the firefighters give important evidence wherever they were, but the firefighters at the towers did not say there were bombs there, they said there were explosions. Explosions does not mean there were bombs. "Like bombs going off" does not mean "there were bombs going off" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
Welcome back, marky, you weren't gone long, were you?
No, the quotes from the firemen do not prove that CD did not take place. However, the only evidence for CD is that "it looked like it" to people watching the video on their computers, so the fact that the firemen who were actually there were expecting the building to collapse shows that it was not so surprising, and there are quotes from people who saw that it was deforming before it fell. The point is that to the people who were actually there, it did not look like CD, only to those watching their computer screens. There really is more to life than what can be shown on a screen. Also the quotes show that there were a lot more than scattered fires, as Headhunter said. Yes, the way it fell does not prove it was or was not CD either, I was answering the claim that it fell in its own footprint, which it did not. We can tell the damage to the buildings beside it was owing to WTC7 because it is WTC7 debris piled up against them. The second Verizon picture shows clearly recognisable framing, not from the towers, leaning up against it. These pictures are not showing up at the moment, but can be seen here
Why do you say the fires were not that bad, and could be put out when the firemen thought they were bad, as shown by the quotes? Just look at the first five quotes. Do you think you know better than the firemen by looking at your computer? |
nope i wasnt gone long i kept getting emails saying there was a message and could'nt help asking questions or feeling i need to explain ect.
i carnt be bothered with the circlar debate of this because we had a go it not long ago and it will be repeating itself again and it get s a bit boring when we disagree and go over the same ground. so if we should'nt believe what we see on our computer screens does that mean we should only believe whats on our computer screen if it toes the offical lie? line even? and are firemen only important at wtc7? |
marky, marky, I did not say you should not believe what is on your computer screen, I said that it is not the be all and end all, you have to look at other evidence. Just because there seem to be no photos of WTC7 showing the damage caused by the towers does not mean there was none, for instance. Experienced people who were there in person must be relied on more than amateurs giving their opinion after watching the events on video. Of course the firefighters give important evidence wherever they were, but the firefighters at the towers did not say there were bombs there, they said there were explosions. Explosions does not mean there were bombs. "Like bombs going off" does not mean "there were bombs going off" |
yes i mean of course i dont have a mind to think for yourself, let others do it for you and decide for you. who can trust a human afterall to "get" it right. ok i see what your say drop your common sense because we will just justify everything right down to the attack on your civil liberites, do not worry that this has all the hallmarks of when hitler came to power, and if you see anything that dosnt toe the offical storey its all your imagination, i think not.
i cannot believe how obvious 9/11 is and how many people will cover it to try and save their own skin, it wont work. once the vast majority of people are gone and the rest enslaved whats your use then? even the rich will just replace the poor and only the super rich will remain as important! i just hope you enjoy the world you helped create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | here we go again using firemen quotes that mean nothing unless they dont mention anything to do with explosions or how little fire was up near the collapse zone, demoliton pops ect ect.
so if the firemen quotes can be trusted and prove no demoliton took place at wtc7, then that looks very grim where the towers were concerned.
my point here is nothing more than selective evidence to fit your storey on 9/11.
also you keep saying wtc7 only almost fell into its own footprint because other builings were nearby, but it is also what you'd expect from a 47 storey building being CD'ed. of course nearby buildings would be hit with a certain amout of rubble who ever said every CD was perfect or went according to plan?
then again if wtc1 and 2 caused damage to wtc7 how do we know it was wtc7 that caused damage to other buildings and it wasnt caused when wtc1 or 2 collapsed?
why wasnt anyone attempting to put out the fires in wtc7 they wasnt that bad. other buildings were on fire that didnt belong to larry silverstein and they still stand today! or is that just another coincidence to go with the hundreds of others? |
Welcome back, marky, you weren't gone long, were you?
No, the quotes from the firemen do not prove that CD did not take place. However, the only evidence for CD is that "it looked like it" to people watching the video on their computers, so the fact that the firemen who were actually there were expecting the building to collapse shows that it was not so surprising, and there are quotes from people who saw that it was deforming before it fell. The point is that to the people who were actually there, it did not look like CD, only to those watching their computer screens. There really is more to life than what can be shown on a screen. Also the quotes show that there were a lot more than scattered fires, as Headhunter said. Yes, the way it fell does not prove it was or was not CD either, I was answering the claim that it fell in its own footprint, which it did not. We can tell the damage to the buildings beside it was owing to WTC7 because it is WTC7 debris piled up against them. The second Verizon picture shows clearly recognisable framing, not from the towers, leaning up against it. These pictures are not showing up at the moment, but can be seen here
Why do you say the fires were not that bad, and could be put out when the firemen thought they were bad, as shown by the quotes? Just look at the first five quotes. Do you think you know better than the firemen by looking at your computer? |
nope i wasnt gone long i kept getting emails saying there was a message and could'nt help asking questions or feeling i need to explain ect.
i carnt be bothered with the circlar debate of this because we had a go it not long ago and it will be repeating itself again and it get s a bit boring when we disagree and go over the same ground. so if we should'nt believe what we see on our computer screens does that mean we should only believe whats on our computer screen if it toes the offical lie? line even? and are firemen only important at wtc7? |
marky, marky, I did not say you should not believe what is on your computer screen, I said that it is not the be all and end all, you have to look at other evidence. Just because there seem to be no photos of WTC7 showing the damage caused by the towers does not mean there was none, for instance. Experienced people who were there in person must be relied on more than amateurs giving their opinion after watching the events on video. Of course the firefighters give important evidence wherever they were, but the firefighters at the towers did not say there were bombs there, they said there were explosions. Explosions does not mean there were bombs. "Like bombs going off" does not mean "there were bombs going off" |
yes i mean of course i dont have a mind to think for yourself, let others do it for you and decide for you. who can trust a human afterall to "get" it right. ok i see what your say drop your common sense because we will just justify everything right down to the attack on your civil liberites, do not worry that this has all the hallmarks of when hitler came to power, and if you see anything that dosnt toe the offical storey its all your imagination, i think not.
i cannot believe how obvious 9/11 is and how many people will cover it to try and save their own skin, it wont work. once the vast majority of people are gone and the rest enslaved whats your use then? even the rich will just replace the poor and only the super rich will remain as important! i just hope you enjoy the world you helped create. |
Rubbish from beginning to end, if you had any common sense you would not accept the rubbish you are fed as these half-baked theories, Bush is on his way out and with him his attitude that anything is justified in his phoney war against terror. What I find more scary is the rise of the totally irrational, as exemplified by impossible conspiracy theories just as much as religious fanatics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| like i said beofre i really i hope your right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Help I've been enslaved by the MASTER RACE in a FEMA death camp. Or something.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Help I've been enslaved by the MASTER RACE in a FEMA death camp. Or something. |
says the man who dosnt even notice his civil liberties being taken away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Bush is on his way out and with him his attitude that anything is justified in his phoney war against terror. |
I do hope you're right, but I suspect otherwise; The 'War on Terror' is way to successful a franchise to go under with its current figurehead. Bliar likes it. Brown likes it. Cameron likes it. Hilary Clinton likes it.
You don't need to accept trutherism to see that you can do all kinds of things in its name; nonsense we can now merrily attack Somalia on the basis that 'Al Qaeda operatives' have conveniently located themselves in that strategically important corner of the world.
I'm just surprised Al Qaeda haven't turned up in Venezuela yet.
Anyway, Bush is irrelevant. Personally I thought things couldn't get much worse than Thatcher and Reagan - got proved wrong there - I worry I may be looking back in ten years and getting oddly nostalgic about the Bush years.
We'll probably be supposed to be scared of evil Zoroastrians or something by then.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
double post - god this forum is erratic at the moment!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Help I've been enslaved by the MASTER RACE in a FEMA death camp. Or something. |
Help! I'm supposed to be TERRIFIED of THOUSANDS of FANATICAL ISLAMIC SLEEPER CELLS with SUITCASE DIRTY BOMBS who consistently fail to unleash their UNRELENTING REIGN OF TERROR against the West that MAY LAST OUR ENTIRE LIFETIME. I must hand over ALL MY PERSONAL PRIVACY to FACELESS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CORPORATIONS or I'm DOOMED. Or something. Quick! Let's invade someone else...Before it's too late!!!!!!!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | | Bush is on his way out and with him his attitude that anything is justified in his phoney war against terror. |
I do hope you're right, but I suspect otherwise; The 'War on Terror' is way to successful a franchise to go under with its current figurehead. Bliar likes it. Brown likes it. Cameron likes it. Hilary Clinton likes it.
You don't need to accept trutherism to see that you can do all kinds of things in its name; nonsense we can now merrily attack Somalia on the basis that 'Al Qaeda operatives' have conveniently located themselves in that strategically important corner of the world.
I'm just surprised Al Qaeda haven't turned up in Venezuela yet.
Anyway, Bush is irrelevant. Personally I thought things couldn't get much worse than Thatcher and Reagan - got proved wrong there - I worry I may be looking back in ten years and getting oddly nostalgic about the Bush years.
We'll probably be supposed to be scared of evil Zoroastrians or something by then. |
I suspect it is more that Blair is stuck with it than that he like it, he thought he would look like a good war leader like Thatcher, but it has not turned out that way at all. Brown keeps his head down, and Cameron cannot disown past policy, but none of them would be keen to get involved in anything else warlike, I suggest. Her original support of the Iraq war is a millstone round Hilary Clinton's neck. War is just so last-year now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | suspect it is more that Blair is stuck with it than that he like it, he thought he would look like a good war leader like Thatcher, but it has not turned out that way at all. Brown keeps his head down, and Cameron cannot disown past policy, but none of them would be keen to get involved in anything else warlike, I suggest. Her original support of the Iraq war is a millstone round Hilary Clinton's neck. War is just so last-year now! |
Well, I guess we'll find out.
I would disagree about Bliar, though; he simply would not be pushing through all this anti civil libertarian stuff otherwise; he doesn't have to do that for Bush. Even if we for a moment assume 911 was purely as the 911 commission said it was, it seems plain to me the 'threat of terrorism' as at best wildly exaggerated. However, I strongly suspect it's easy to believe it's real; I really think coppers busting muslims on dodgy evidence really believe the 'threat' is profound (There are obviously some muslim terrorists, but not on a more substantial scale than the 90s when they weren't allegedly about to destroy 'our way of life'). So I think it's a kind of meme that self perpetuates. TV programmes like 'Sleeper Cell' and apocalyptic documentaries about 'dirty bombs' help to keep this going.
We even have a terrorism policy where I work. And an insertion into standard confidentiality policies that we must report 'terrorist activity'. This is so absurd I find it pretty funny; "So Mr X, you've been doing all this sniff , been kicked out of your hostel and now feel paranoid and want to end it all...what's that? You don't know where to put your suitcase nuke for safe keeping?'' If you're gullible, however, it reinforces the notion of the tremendous threat.
Politicians may be b******, but they're not daft. Others may have the sense to pull back from invade-o-rama foreign policy, but the 'war on terror' simply offers too many opportunities for using it as a scapegoat for unpleasant domestic and foreign policies. Besides, now the meme is implanted, the opposition can always accuse them of being 'soft on terror'.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | | Help I've been enslaved by the MASTER RACE in a FEMA death camp. Or something. |
Help! I'm supposed to be TERRIFIED of THOUSANDS of FANATICAL ISLAMIC SLEEPER CELLS with SUITCASE DIRTY BOMBS who consistently fail to unleash their UNRELENTING REIGN OF TERROR against the West that MAY LAST OUR ENTIRE LIFETIME. I must hand over ALL MY PERSONAL PRIVACY to FACELESS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CORPORATIONS or I'm DOOMED. Or something. Quick! Let's invade someone else...Before it's too late!!!!!!! |
Well you think nonsense tv=loss of civil liberties so, make of that what you will.
And how long have the illuminati or whatever been trying to take over the world? They're a bit nonsense at it really aren't they? Ooh, we'll make them go to interviews for their passports. Do you think we can find out what they're buying at the the shops? THAT'S THE ROUTE TO GLOBAL DOMINATION THAT IS! I WILL PUT REPEATS ON BBC ONE AND THEY WILL BE IN MY POWER!
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well you think nonsense tv=loss of civil liberties so, make of that what you will.
|
Say what? I originally said 10 years ago you could could proper news from the BBC which I then clarified by saying this was meant as a general comment on the tabloid state of the media. I didn't say one word about it equaling loss of civil liberties. In retrospect, I would concede that the BBC are not the worst offender, but I had watched BBC Breakfast News that morning which is utter drivel.
Nevertheless, there are some civil liberties implications; the mass media determine the boundaries of debate, analysis and what constitutes news. So if, for example, large scale media attention is given to arrests of suspected terrorists but way less attention is given when charges prove groundless, then this contributes to an overall impression that terrorists are being arrested left right and centre to the less than meticulous consumer; which in turn makes people more susceptible to 'counter measures'. How many times do you see pundits wondering aloud if Britain survived all those years of the IRA setting off bombs left, right and centre, how come we need all these stringent measures to counter Islamic terrorists who in over five years since 911 (according to official dogma) have managed two attacks on British soil, one totally botched? After "Ricin Terror Plot", where was "Oh, sorry; it was *"? I'm not saying these stories don't exist - they just lack the prominence afforded the fear-mongering ones.
Incidentally, I do pay some attention to the 'debunking camp' and am a pretty conservative 'conspiracy theorist' (IMHO); I'm consistently bemused as to how debunking of THE ALL CONSUMING APOCALYPTIC TERROR THREAT, WORSE THAN ANYTHING WE'VE FACED SINCE THE NAZIS conspiracy theory never features. Why is that?
| Quote: | | And how long have the illuminati or whatever been trying to take over the world? |
Have I ever said one word about the illuminati or anyone else trying to take over the world? Feel free to search my posts to confirm I haven't.
| Quote: | | Ooh, we'll make them go to interviews for their passports. Do you think we can find out what they're buying at the the shops? THAT'S THE ROUTE TO GLOBAL DOMINATION THAT IS! I WILL PUT REPEATS ON BBC ONE AND THEY WILL BE IN MY POWER! |
I'm amazed at how confident you are in the intrinsic benevolence of government.
Ever heard of function creep?
Do governments, unchecked, tend to seek to enhance their own power or not?
Bad things don't happen overnight; they creep up over time.
So we start with tightening up on passports, chips in 'em.
We move to going onto the National Identity Register to get one
Then we go to compulsary ID cards or at least making it impossible to buy anything or use public services without them.
We thus give over huge swathes of personal data and, e.g. face large fines for having the temerity to not promptly inform the state of moving address. And get charged if we lose it or have it stolen. So, hang on -
Why not implant them? The technology is there already. Can't lose 'em then, can you?
Before you shout 'conspiriloon', shout it at the UK government first -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2517940.html
| Quote: | | To combat crime the strategy unit suggests adopting controversial measures used abroad, including: enforced heroin vaccinations, alcohol rationing, a ban on alcohol advertising, “chemical castration”, ID chip implants, the public shaming of offenders, the use of bounty hunters and enforced parenting classes. |
Not yet policy - but genuinely being thought about.
So if you implant the mentally ill (which the Telegraph coverage of the report specified), then maybe offenders or whatever, why not everyone else?
Is it really so far fetched? (apart from the bit in the article about rationing alcohol - mind you who'd have thought they'd ban people incarcerated indefinitely in psychiatric hospitals from having a cig, but that's exactly what they're doing)
Would you like one?
Would you mind?
Once you surrender to ID cards, you really may as well.
Like I said before; I see your point.
If you go to work, shut up and do as you're told you'll be fine.
Personally, I don't consent to the state or corporations knowing all my business. I don't want everywhere I go, everything I buy and everything I do to be logged and tracked.
Even if, by some perverted turn of logic, you see our current rulers as benign and honourable, once this nonsense is in place, how could you ever resist a country gone seriously Fourth Reich?
We already live in an era where America is running a TORTURE CAMP off the coast of Cuba. Does that bother you? Do you care?
Personally, I think all this FEMA death camp stuff is pretty wild. But mainly because I think things are more subtle, incremental and insidious. One day we'll just wake up and discover our entire lives are owned and if you don't like it you're a terrorist or whatever. If that doesn't bother you, fine. It does me.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | | suspect it is more that Blair is stuck with it than that he like it, he thought he would look like a good war leader like Thatcher, but it has not turned out that way at all. Brown keeps his head down, and Cameron cannot disown past policy, but none of them would be keen to get involved in anything else warlike, I suggest. Her original support of the Iraq war is a millstone round Hilary Clinton's neck. War is just so last-year now! |
Well, I guess we'll find out.
I would disagree about Bliar, though; he simply would not be pushing through all this anti civil libertarian stuff otherwise; he doesn't have to do that for Bush. Even if we for a moment assume 911 was purely as the 911 commission said it was, it seems plain to me the 'threat of terrorism' as at best wildly exaggerated. However, I strongly suspect it's easy to believe it's real; I really think coppers busting muslims on dodgy evidence really believe the 'threat' is profound (There are obviously some muslim terrorists, but not on a more substantial scale than the 90s when they weren't allegedly about to destroy 'our way of life'). So I think it's a kind of meme that self perpetuates. TV programmes like 'Sleeper Cell' and apocalyptic documentaries about 'dirty bombs' help to keep this going.
We even have a terrorism policy where I work. And an insertion into standard confidentiality policies that we must report 'terrorist activity'. This is so absurd I find it pretty funny; "So Mr X, you've been doing all this sniff , been kicked out of your hostel and now feel paranoid and want to end it all...what's that? You don't know where to put your suitcase nuke for safe keeping?'' If you're gullible, however, it reinforces the notion of the tremendous threat.
Politicians may be *, but they're not daft. Others may have the sense to pull back from invade-o-rama foreign policy, but the 'war on terror' simply offers too many opportunities for using it as a scapegoat for unpleasant domestic and foreign policies. Besides, now the meme is implanted, the opposition can always accuse them of being 'soft on terror'. |
I think we are now seeing a more balanced view, like Ken Macdonald's recent speech - LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | Well you think nonsense tv=loss of civil liberties so, make of that what you will.
|
Say what? I originally said 10 years ago you could could proper news from the BBC which I then clarified by saying this was meant as a general comment on the tabloid state of the media. I didn't say one word about it equaling loss of civil liberties. In retrospect, I would concede that the BBC are not the worst offender, but I had watched BBC Breakfast News that morning which is utter drivel. |
I asked what civil liberties we had lost in the past ten years. You brought up how nonsense TV was. Since when was breakfast TV ever about anything more than making you feel good before you went to work?
| Quote: |
Nevertheless, there are some civil liberties implications; the mass media determine the boundaries of debate, analysis and what constitutes news. So if, for example, large scale media attention is given to arrests of suspected terrorists but way less attention is given when charges prove groundless, then this contributes to an overall impression that terrorists are being arrested left right and centre to the less than meticulous consumer; which in turn makes people more susceptible to 'counter measures'. How many times do you see pundits wondering aloud if Britain survived all those years of the IRA setting off bombs left, right and centre, how come we need all these stringent measures to counter Islamic terrorists who in over five years since 911 (according to official dogma) have managed two attacks on British soil, one totally botched? After "Ricin Terror Plot", where was "Oh, sorry; it was *"? I'm not saying these stories don't exist - they just lack the prominence afforded the fear-mongering ones. |
That's because "Everything's alright" isn't news. That's the default. Imagine how long it would take if the news consisted of:
Tonight on Newsroom South East, Nothing happened in Tonbridge, there were no car crashes, no robberies. no murders, no conspiracies. Nothing happened in Sevenoaks, there were no... etc
And as for the IRA, they had a purpose, clearly stated, and most of the time gave warnings. If a terror groups purpose is to kill people because they're crazy, that's harder to police.
| Quote: | | Incidentally, I do pay some attention to the 'debunking camp' and am a pretty conservative 'conspiracy theorist' (IMHO); I'm consistently bemused as to how debunking of THE ALL CONSUMING APOCALYPTIC TERROR THREAT, WORSE THAN ANYTHING WE'VE FACED SINCE THE NAZIS conspiracy theory never features. Why is that? |
You have to keep bringing up the nazis?
Because it's not a conspiracy theory?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | And how long have the illuminati or whatever been trying to take over the world? |
Have I ever said one word about the illuminati or anyone else trying to take over the world? Feel free to search my posts to confirm I haven't. |
This was mainly a general point, but I figured there was some point to this civil liberty erosion idea of yours? After all, Labour won't be in power for ever, so there's no reason why, if there was a slide, it couldn't or wouldn't be reversed by a different government. A lot of people seem to think there is a higher guiding hand to all this.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Ooh, we'll make them go to interviews for their passports. Do you think we can find out what they're buying at the the shops? THAT'S THE ROUTE TO GLOBAL DOMINATION THAT IS! I WILL PUT REPEATS ON BBC ONE AND THEY WILL BE IN MY POWER! |
I'm amazed at how confident you are in the intrinsic benevolence of government.
Ever heard of function creep?
Do governments, unchecked, tend to seek to enhance their own power or not?
Bad things don't happen overnight; they creep up over time.
So we start with tightening up on passports, chips in 'em.
We move to going onto the National Identity Register to get one
Then we go to compulsary ID cards or at least making it impossible to buy anything or use public services without them.
We thus give over huge swathes of personal data and, e.g. face large fines for having the temerity to not promptly inform the state of moving address. And get charged if we lose it or have it stolen. So, hang on -
Why not implant them? The technology is there already. Can't lose 'em then, can you?
Before you shout 'conspiriloon', shout it at the UK government first -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2517940.html
| Quote: | | To combat crime the strategy unit suggests adopting controversial measures used abroad, including: enforced heroin vaccinations, alcohol rationing, a ban on alcohol advertising, “chemical castration”, ID chip implants, the public shaming of offenders, the use of bounty hunters and enforced parenting classes. |
Not yet policy - but genuinely being thought about.
So if you implant the mentally ill (which the Telegraph coverage of the report specified), then maybe offenders or whatever, why not everyone else?
Is it really so far fetched? (apart from the bit in the article about rationing alcohol - mind you who'd have thought they'd ban people incarcerated indefinitely in psychiatric hospitals from having a cig, but that's exactly what they're doing)
Would you like one?
Would you mind?
Once you surrender to ID cards, you really may as well. |
Because the government has done so well in introducing it's crazy ideas. Oh wait, no, they get opposed, often by large sections of the labour party itself. Despite what you may think, the government is made up of ordinary people, and changes over time. It's not a great permanent "government" that continually acts to opress. IT's this idea of yours that made me think you might be an illuminati type conspiracist.
| Quote: |
Like I said before; I see your point.
If you go to work, shut up and do as you're told you'll be fine.
Personally, I don't consent to the state or corporations knowing all my business. I don't want everywhere I go, everything I buy and everything I do to be logged and tracked. |
Like I said before, if anyone cared enough to want to know all this they could pay a man to follow you and another to search your bin, and you'd be happy because you'd avoided the "surveillance society"
| Quote: |
Even if, by some perverted turn of logic, you see our current rulers as benign and honourable, once this nonsense is in place, how could you ever resist a country gone seriously Fourth Reich? |
Assuming the country did go the way you fear it is, the same thing that stopped the country from going that way for it's entire history.
| Quote: | | We already live in an era where America is running a TORTURE CAMP off the coast of Cuba. Does that bother you? Do you care? |
Of course I care, but is that the start of a slippery slope? How much opposition is there to that camp? The whole of the rest of the world and large portions of America? Do you see why we're not heading where you think we are?
| Quote: |
Personally, I think all this FEMA death camp stuff is pretty wild. |
Well assuming that we're talking about FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, then yes, it's about as wild as they get. You see how they deslt with Hurricane Katrina? See why the government doesn't scare me? They're not some efficient machine.
| Quote: | | But mainly because I think things are more subtle, incremental and insidious. One day we'll just wake up and discover our entire lives are owned and if you don't like it you're a terrorist or whatever. If that doesn't bother you, fine. It does me. |
Well when that happens, if they still allow me my one phonecall, then I'll ring you and admit I was wrong. I don;t think you'll ever get that call though.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
JP -
I'm whizzing through this cos I decided to take a break from here, but just wanted to give some brief reply - sorry if any replies come across a bit hastily composed:
| Quote: | That's because "Everything's alright" isn't news. That's the default. Imagine how long it would take if the news consisted of:
Tonight on Newsroom South East, Nothing happened in Tonbridge, there were no car crashes, no robberies. no murders, no conspiracies. Nothing happened in Sevenoaks, there were no... etc
And as for the IRA, they had a purpose, clearly stated, and most of the time gave warnings. If a terror groups purpose is to kill people because they're crazy, that's harder to police. |
Yes, but this misses the point somewhat:
Screaming headlines about terror terror plots that become back page news when said plots are found to be bogus nevertheless contribute to an atmosphere of irrational fear. In fact, "Police get it wrong - again" is actually fairly newsworthy; I'm not talking about the media covering nothing but continuing coverage of stories they report or at least asking probing questions about the "Al Qeada threar". I maintain that's part of their job.
The IRA were also very different insofar as they actually managed to conduct a terror campaign on mainland England for many years. Despite the handicap of being less 'crazy' and unwilling to commit suicide thus having to account for the difficult 'getting away' bit. All these 'sleeper cells' have manifestly failed to awaken.
| Quote: | You have to keep bringing up the nazis?
Because it's not a conspiracy theory?
|
No, I'm paraphrasing current political rhetoric - John Reid came up with the 'biggest threat since WWII', we hear about 'Islamofascists' etc. I'm emphasising the absurdity of it in the same way you may emphasise what you consider the absurd aspects of 'conspiracy theories'.
| Quote: | This was mainly a general point, but I figured there was some point to this civil liberty erosion idea of yours? After all, Labour won't be in power for ever, so there's no reason why, if there was a slide, it couldn't or wouldn't be reversed by a different government. A lot of people seem to think there is a higher guiding hand to all this.
|
To explain my own take on this would entail more writing than I can be arsed to do. Suffice to say, I do not believe the world is run by some distinct shadowy cabal or that there is a specific 'master plan'.
| Quote: | Because the government has done so well in introducing it's crazy ideas. Oh wait, no, they get opposed, often by large sections of the labour party itself. Despite what you may think, the government is made up of ordinary people, and changes over time. It's not a great permanent "government" that continually acts to opress. IT's this idea of yours that made me think you might be an illuminati type conspiracist.
|
Despite opposition, the totally ludicrous and expensive ID cards scheme is still a goer. Governments are made up of ordinary humans (maybe the odd lizard  ) which is precisely what makes them so dangerous; particularly when they start believing their own propaganda. And it's amazing what people will do to protect their own self interest and keep their job.
Ordinary humans have endlessly demonstrated throughout history their ability to do unspeakable things. And daft things. And self serving things. And to do bad things to people 'for their own good'.
The Labour party is not permanent though they have done a remarkable job in continuing the general trends from the Thatcher years. Hardly a new path.
| Quote: | | Like I said before, if anyone cared enough to want to know all this they could pay a man to follow you and another to search your bin, and you'd be happy because you'd avoided the "surveillance society" |
I would. Because that's very expensive and is only done occasionally And for very specific reasons. (Horrible life erasing computer errors aside) there is a world of difference between this and the awareness that your entire life is filed and recorded as routine. And there is way more potential for abuse.
Let me put it this way; why? Why should this occur? All that money, all that effort. Why? Please don't tell it's to 'fight terrorism'. But if you cannot see a genuine rationale, then you must ask yourself why you have handed some guy in an IT suite the ability to be privy to your personal affairs.
| Quote: | | Assuming the country did go the way you fear it is, the same thing that stopped the country from going that way for it's entire history. |
I'm not sure I understand; The history of Britain is hardly rosy. We, as elsewhere, only acquired any common human rights because they were fought for. The history of the common Englishman is very different to the history of the kings and queens.
"It couldn't happen here" is like the way people who get mugged or get cancer or whatever often say they felt like those things only happened to other people.
| Quote: | Of course I care, but is that the start of a slippery slope? How much opposition is there to that camp? The whole of the rest of the world and large portions of America? Do you see why we're not heading where you think we are?
|
Yet despite this opposition this remains. As does 'extraordinary rendition'. As does detention without charge. Perhaps unthinkable a couple of decades ago.
Really, it's contingent on which way the balance tips. People really do state they need to 'give up a few freedoms' to 'protect liberty' (or is the other way round?). Personally, I'm aghast that anyone could buy into that.
Without the fear of terrorism this would simply not be happening. What I find remarkable and frightening is the power this concept has come to wield. It's not just 'it's bad' - it's what on earth is the possible justification?
| Quote: | Well assuming that we're talking about FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, then yes, it's about as wild as they get. You see how they deslt with Hurricane Katrina? See why the government doesn't scare me? They're not some efficient machine.
|
Katrina raises the disturbing question of how much will there actually was to save people, particularly if many were poor and black. Don't take that as a 'conspiracy theory'; just a thought.
Mind you, on your terms it should scare you; what if you're in the disaster zone needing help next time?
| Quote: | | Well when that happens, if they still allow me my one phonecall, then I'll ring you and admit I was wrong. I don;t think you'll ever get that call though. |
I didn't say you'd get carted off to a camp.
Anyway, that call is unlikely - heh - I'm sure they'll come for me before they come for you!
But let me close with this; do you believe we are facing a dire threat from terrorism which is seriously threatening the country and necessitates the sacrifice of at least some civil liberties? If yes, then we must agree to disagree. If no, you'd perhaps concede there are two possibilities:
a/They know it's BS and are using it to pursue ulterior motives
b/They believe it
Frankly, I find either option pretty disturbing.
However, we may well be deadlocked insofar as I struggle to see why you fail to perceive a threat to our civil liberties and you struggle to perceive why I do. We would both regard each other as naive.
Anyway, I'm taking a holiday from this forum for a bit (probably), so must dash.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
But let me close with this; do you believe we are facing a dire threat from terrorism which is seriously threatening the country and necessitates the sacrifice of at least some civil liberties? If yes, then we must agree to disagree. If no, you'd perhaps concede there are two possibilities:
a/They know it's BS and are using it to pursue ulterior motives
b/They believe it
Frankly, I find either option pretty disturbing.
|
c/ They think there might be something to it, but in any case it's a good opportunity to extend their power in the generic sense by exaggerating the threat. Power is attractive and fun.
??
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | c/ They think there might be something to it, but in any case it's a good opportunity to extend their power in the generic sense by exaggerating the threat. Power is attractive and fun. |
Good point.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
