Legal and Political

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoSlash27 said:
So whaddya think: is it worth keeping an eye out for this kind of thing?
It still depends upon what the so-called conspiracy is.

Consider the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy. Even a quick thought of the implications of that, would reveal that many, many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up. Any conspiracy that relied upon so many people to keep it secret would fail. Utterly.

Like any mechanism, the simpler it is, the less likelihood of breakdown. Complexity breeds mechanical defect. So it is with conspiracies. The more complex, the more people in the know, the more likely there will be a defect that will bring the house of cards down upon itself.

When talking about legislation, there is another problem. Not knowing statutory construction; not paying attention to the definitions used, leaves one open to theories on how the legislation will be implemented. When one knows the definition of certain terms, then the likelihood of what the legislation will actually do, becomes clearer.

When someone says that a certain piece of legislation will do x, I tend to read the legislation itself to see if it actually will. I have learned, in many painful debates, how legislation is written, how to read it, how statutes are constructed, how definitions are used and how the Courts generally interpret such construction. I could have learned the same things by auditing a few classes, instead, I learned the hard way... And I still don't always get it correct. (But then, neither do the Courts, IMO.)
 
Consider the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy. Even a quick thought of the implications of that, would reveal that many, many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up. Any conspiracy that relied upon so many people to keep it secret would fail. Utterly.

How many were involved in the Manhattan Project? The "911" whatever it was, is falling apart more every day.


badbob
 
Consider the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy. Even a quick thought of the implications of that, would reveal that many, many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up. Any conspiracy that relied upon so many people to keep it secret would fail. Utterly.

Hmmm ... this is simply not true.

The number it would actually take is quite small.
 
"How many were involved in the Manhattan Project?"

A lot, although the sites were remote and the participants were confined by troops. But let me ask you this - Do you think any of them would have spoken publicly if the BOMB had been used on an American city?

John
 
Maybe, maybe not. The Tuskegee Experiment involved a lot of people and took a looong time to be exposed.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
badbob
 
Quote from Antipitas:

Consider the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy. Even a quick thought of the implications of that, would reveal that many, many people would have to be involved in such a cover-up. Any conspiracy that relied upon so many people to keep it secret would fail. Utterly.

Well Antipitas, millions of American citizens (including myself) would say the attempt to keep it secret is indeed failing.

(In fact, 42 percent of America could be labled "conspircay nuts" since a Zogby poll showed 42 percent of Americans believe we were not told the truth regarding 9-11, and 49 percent of New Yorkers thought the same. Is it at least a little intersting that 49 percent of New Yorkers are "conpiracy nuts" and that 42 percent of the United States consists of "conspriacy nuts" like me?)

One of the reasons we (42 percent of America) are so doubtful, is the fact that WTC Building 7 was "pulled" on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, according to statements given by the owner of the Building, Larry Silverstein. Since he owned it, you have to at least pay some attention to what he said. It is not a "conspiracy theory" to believe what someone tells you is it?

Silverstein said the Fire Department called and told him they were going to "pull" the building, meaning bring it down in a controlled demolition.

WTC Building 7 came down in a perfect 6.5 second free fall. But this building was not hit by any airplanes. Some portions of the building were damaged by debris, but there were no thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning it's way through steel beams 47 stories downward. But the building's owner said he was told the building was going to be "pulled."

Problem was, few believe a crew could place the explosives necessary to drop a 47 story building (perfectly within it's own footprint at a free fall rate of 6.5 seconds) in the time period between 11:30 a.m, and 5:30 p.m. Sept. 11th, 2001.

It was pulled. It indeed was done by explosives, as a simple viewing of the 6.5 second free fall will confirm. But I (and 42 percent of Americans polled in that Zogby poll) find it very, very hard to believe it was decided at 11:30 a.m., on Sept. 11th, 2001 to install the explosives and pop them off by 5:30 p.m. the same day.

Granted, the 9-11 Commission says their report is "incomplete" but are pretty sure that "building damage" alone made it fall right down.

A lot of people believe that the story was changed because people kept pointing out the fact that it appeared questionable that charges could be installed after 11:30 a.m, and it be dropped perfectly at 5:30 p.m., same day.

The only goofy conspiracy thing going on with WTC, is the hypothesis that small areas of fire on different portions of ten separate floors simply made the building fall right down, or that a 47 story building was pulled in less than six hours for the first time in the history of the demolition industry.

Stop and consider. If they could do that job in six hours, why does it cost MILLIONS of dollars and take several weeks to coordinate a "pulling" of other buildings of the same square footage and height?

If damaging portions of ten floors in separate areas of a building, or just lighting the building on fire make it fall right down, (in 6.5 seconds, directly and safely into it's own footprint) wouldn't it be much safer, and therefore much more cost effective from a demolition company's liability insurance premium standpoint, to just use a Bic lighter instead of the hundreds of pounds of explosives a company must purchase and store?

I think it may be that a fire will not make a 47 story code-built skyscraper just fall right down, nor will doing damage to 21 percent of the building make it drop like a rock.

The conspiracy to keep it a secret certainly has appeared to have (as you say) "failed." "Utterly."
 
There's absolutely no doubt that #7 was a demolition.

There's private video footage out there where you can clearly hear the rapid succession of explosives right before it dropped.

All the firemen in the area also said they heard multiple explosives.

wtc-7-small.gif

This is not how a building collapses from any fire in history ...
 
This has turned into yet another conspiracy theory thread. :rolleyes: :barf:

Antipitas - I beg your pardon for closing this thread, but it has veered greatly from where it was originally going. I hope you don't mind starting another discussion. -Dave

Edited by Antipitas: No, Dave. I don't mind at all. After coming home from work and reading this, I would have closed it for the very same reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top