no, you posted up the patriot act, then some provisions from it. Those are not civil liberties. Still waiting for a lost liberty.
" Loss of privacy (by having your communications intercepted without a warrant), being placed under surveillance without a warrant, and having your house searched secretly & not being told about it is a loss of civil rights!" Ok, can you site a specific example? Oh, and please tell me where this is a loss of civil liberties while you are at it.
Going around in circles, ugh! Yes. we know you think those are in there. But where. This is the question that confuses us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy A link to surveillance & communications interception provisions has already been provided.
eXe, I agree that the security policy has went a little too far. But this isn't specific for just America, this is specific for the most of the modern world. Things like privacy are decreasing because of political decsitions and technological achivements.
GTech...you are very patriotic. Has the US government done anything in the past that could be described as corrupt? Why are there so many people asking questions about 9/11? Why can't your government answer any of them? Why does the media answer these questions. The discovery Channel, Popular Mechanics and National geographic are all reputable sources but unfortunately not impartial. Can you just explain some things things please. Why did building 7 collapse? If your answer is "because of fire", how is it that no other building in history has collapsed by cause of fire? What was in building 7? Sorry to bump this thread but I've been away and also interested in this debate. PS. you have some "thing" about "Young angry white males with low IQ" which I fall into on nearly all counts. What makes a young person more "susceptible" to conspiracy theories? White? what's that got to do with anything? Ditto for male. A low IQ doesn't stop people asking questions either. For my part IQ means nothing about intellegence as intellengence cannot be measured fairly.
It is governments job to provide police and courts and national defense. It is not the governments job to entertain morons, and I would be very unhappy if our tax dollars were wasted to do so. The media answers these questions because they make money doing so. Of course, the absolute morons who ask these questions are far beyond the reach of reason and logic, so nothing that the Discovery Channel, Popular Mechanics, or National Geographic could ever publish would satisfy them. They won't be satisfied because they aren't looking for truth, they are looking for something to fill a deep emotional ditch in their psyche's.
So only a moron would question something that didn't seem quite right to them?. Are you saying I (moron) should just believe everything that I read, see and hear from the media and not try to make my own analysis of a situation?
Your asking the same, tired questions about building 7 show that you did not even read the thread; as its been asked and answered several times. If not here, in other threads, on other sites. At the government's site. At the debunking loose change sites. sometimes you need to find your own answers, if you are genuinely curious, instead of trying to drudge up this same tired point again.
The building controller Silverstein said: I've seen the video of this quote do you want me to find it? There just seems to be some different reasons being explained as to the collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437 Fryman is a watse of bandwidth as he'd just post a stock photo, (i'm sure he has a folder called "DP response images" with a one liner like "The aliens are coming" and get heaps of rep points.
I'm not saying that, Silverstein said that the best option was to "pull" the building. What does that mean?
Since he was talking to the fire chief, he probably meant to pull the team (it) out of there since they had been worried about the building falling. did you even watch the news coverage on 9/11? they kept saying building 7 was coming down at any time cuz of the damage and internal files. it was just a matter of time. all this is easily findable if you actually research on your own instead of simply reading the conspiracy theories.
"Get those firemen out of there" "Get them out" "get the team out" "pull it" Which would you use, if talking about a group of firemen in a building about to collapse? Is "Pull it" a common way to talk about evacuation of firemen from a building in the US?
So your concern is simply the phrase being used? If this 1 sentence is the whole basis for your "questions" then I think you are desperately clinging to straws. If you are curious about "pull it" for real, why not ask some firemen or something. I can imagine a conversation like this: Person 1: Is the team in there dealing with the fires? Person 2: Yes, they are in the there. Fires are out of control. Should we pull the team or keep it in there? Person 1: Pull it. In your scenario...person 1 should have said: Pull it. As in the team, not the building. The people in there. We don't want some kids on the internet capable of putting creepy music to this to confuse millions of other kids. Person 2: Too late. Your longwinded explanation lasted too long. they are dead already. Person 1: Oh well. At least no one will misunderstand what I meant to say.