Is it true that in the US it is illegal...
brain_of_jas
Posts: 61
...to dissagree/question the 9/11 comission's report ??
Not trying to start any beef here. Just wondering!
Not trying to start any beef here. Just wondering!
www.myspace.com/dhmarks - Me
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Didn't think so. I've been arguing with my mate about this. He's a conspiricy theory nut and he insists that it is. I said no cause you guys have the firstt amendment and shit. Cheers for the clarification. Im getting bored of his conspiracy theory bollocks all the time.
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
Sorry, thanks for not taking offense. None was meant to you personally, honest!
I just chuckle, though ... The world is goin' to hell in a handcart.
If that were true half of this board would be in Guantanamo.
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
Probably
Just out of curiosity, where did your pal get this idea?
The Moving Train?
SNAP ...
Be fair now. I've seen some pretty outlandish 9/11-related posts on this board, but never one that has gone so far to suggest that it's illegal to question the events or the official commission report.
If I see that damn "hijackers still alive" story from the BBC one more time though, I think I might go apeshit
HA! Really? I missed that one ...
God no...don't encourage it.
Ah hell, here you go:
FROM 9/23/01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
That case of identify crisis was solved 4 days later, but people still quote that story all the time.
Yes, sorry for going down that route ...
Anyone can cut and paste oppinions on the net !!
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
Careful ... This is a bit of a touchy topic on here.
Newton's 3rd law would be required by any theory describing how the towers collapsed. Neither the planes-version or the explosives-version violates Newton's 3rd law. Newton's 3rd law would only violate a theory stating that the towers collapsed for no reason, and I haven't seen that theory floating around.
If you can found out where he cut-and-pasted the "illegal dissent" issue, I'd be interested to take a look.
does newton's law describe why building 7 fell when it was the furthest away and not hit by a plane? has anyone see the pics of building 5 which had far more fire damage and after the fires went out left pretty much only the steel frame skeleton?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Wow! I didn't know El_Kabong was into the Scottish music scene. Hell, I didn't even know he was Scottish
Umm...Newton's 3rd law would simply dictate that in order for building 7 to fall another force would have had to interact with building 7. That "other force" could have been debris, planted explosives, seismic vibrations, exploding gas tanks, etc.
Yes. I've also heard crazy rumors that building fires are not all equal and that buildings themselves are not all the same.
Chill man.
I will try and fins out where he got his info and post it back here
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
yes, i believe that theory as well...i just haven't heard one explaining why the building hte furthest away and sustained the least amount of damage would fall straight down after buckling in the middle and fall at something like 1 second per floor
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
As far as im aware its about EQUAL and OPPOSITE reactions. There is way more involved than just Newtons 3rd Law. The force applied would need to be equal to the force of the reaction.
Factors in the falling of a building would affect this though so its not about equal and opposite reactions
for example when a gun is fired you get an opposite reaction - recoil. However the reaction is not eqaual to the force of the bullet. This is because energy is lost to the environment - heat and sound (the bang of the gun) so newtons law doesnt really apply once you take into account the other factors in the environment
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band
Yes, yes, and yes.
No. It is all about equal and opposite reactions to many actions, including "factors in the falling of a building".
The force of the "environment" is just another action that must be taken into account. However, this only comes into play once the bullet is accelerating. The force of a gun's recoil is exactly equal to the force on the bullet.
Ok. Newton's third law would describe that. Unfortunately, he can probably point to concrete dust coming out of a handful of windows in a haphazard pattern. To bring down a building of that size and shape without toppling it over, explosives would have to be applied in greater quantity and in a much more even pattern of distribution unless the explosives were so powerful that they would have expelled a much greater quantity of dust and torn a multi-story hole in the building in the process.
In short, putting a half-dozen charges in any of the WTC buildings isn't going to bring it down.
Not really. He understands something about where the law applies, he simply doesn't know anything about building demolition. Furthermore, if he really understood his own argument he'd realize why a few haphazard explosions wouldn't bring the building down -- there would be too much force still holding the building up. At best the fucker would have toppled over on its side, which is kind of ironic considering that the must-have-been-explosives crowd for some reason thinks that the building collapsing straight down helps their argument rather than hurts it.
Cool.
GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax
By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
amckeon@nashuatelegraph.com
Published: Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006
A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.
Mary Maxwell
OFFICE SOUGHT: U.S. Congress, 2nd District.
AGE: 59.
ADDRESS: Concord.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND: None.
OCCUPATION: Student.
EDUCATION: Doctorate in politics from an Australian college; course in diplomatic and consular law at the University of Mannheim, Germany.
AFFILIATIONS: None.
MILITARY: None.
PERSONAL: Husband, George, deceased.
WEB SITE: http://www.maxwellforcongress.com
Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.
Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.
But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”
She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.
In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.
Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.
In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.
Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)
“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.
Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.
She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.
Aye right, not the best example then. So i thought Newtons law was to do with two objects interacting. Surely the characteristics of the WTC falling involves more than just newtons third law?
www.myspace.com/jackietreehornmusic - The Band