Why the PATRIOT Act?

[John Albert]

Wait a minute... you are seriously putting forth the notion that the World Trade Center contained hundreds of feet of vertical space inside wherein there were no floors?

:confused:


That is exactly what the OP is saying........


Why? What would be the purpose of constructing an office building like that?

The WTC towers were not some inscrutable primeval cave. They were modern office buildings with hundreds of tenants located in the business center of one of the world's most populous cities. If it were indeed true that huge vertical open spaces existed inside, wouldn't somebody—perhaps the hundreds of security and maintenance personnel who worked in the building on a daily basis—have noticed and wondered at them?

Such huge gaps in lateral support would have required additional buttressing to prop up the outside girders and windows and hold the weight of the populated floors above. How do you account for that?

This is definitely one of the most asinine 9/11 "theories" I've ever read. I'm even having trouble deciding if this is more or less buffoonish than the "no planes" scenario.

What again, is the underlying reason for believing something so incredibly stupid and obviously wrong?

[Biscuit]

Everywhere in the Patriot act where the word 'terrorist' is used.

Indeed! It is used in headers, in subheaders, and in many forms. Anti-terrorism, terrorism, terrorist, terrorists ect. You need to find out which section(s), which use of the word terrorist lead you to your prediction in the OP. Here is a link to the patriot act. (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) Have fun!

And about the secret cabal, Svali's testimony is the best I have found so far that describes what it is. The basic definition of the secret cabal is that all its members are under mind control.

That is evidence that svali went on a radio show and said a bunch of stuff. It does not prove the existence of the shadow people or secret cabal. (are those terms interchangeable?). What do you mean by mind control? How do you know this secret cabal is real? Actual evidence please.

By your standards of evidence I could prove aliens attacked america. (http://jeff560.tripod.com/script.html)

[Anders Lindman]

Why? What would be the purpose of constructing an office building like that?


Why? To have them pancaked in 2001 of course.

[Craig4]

Why? To have them pancaked in 2001 of course.

But you know there were floors in the WTC because you've as much as admitted to having entered the WTC prior to 9/11.

[Anders Lindman]

But you know there were floors in the WTC because you've as much as admitted to having entered the WTC prior to 9/11.

Seems like I will have to use mind control techniques on you. ;) For the third time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8052371&postcount=202

[Craig4]

Seems like I will have to use mind control techniques on you. ;) For the third time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8052371&postcount=202

But you know there are floors because you've seen them. You as much as admitted that you had been inside the WTC.

[Dcdrac]

That picture cannot be used at all to say there were no floors there clearly are unles you do not want to see them nor want them to be there

[Anders Lindman]

But you know there are floors because you've seen them. You as much as admitted that you had been inside the WTC.

I did not! I basically admitted I haven't been at the WTC with my embarrassing mistake about the elevators.

[Dcdrac]

And while I am not an engineer I know enough basic physics to know that buildings that tall without floors in the middle would have catastrophically failed as soon as they tried to build them that way.

Or can these fantasy cabals bend the laws of physics too?

[Anders Lindman]

That picture cannot be used at all to say there were no floors there clearly are unles you do not want to see them nor want them to be there

Helicopter view of the Twin Towers during their final stages of construction in 1971: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fZgEl5PKQ

[Anders Lindman]

And while I am not an engineer I know enough basic physics to know that buildings that tall without floors in the middle would have catastrophically failed as soon as they tried to build them that way.

Or can these fantasy cabals bend the laws of physics too?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8051768&postcount=181

[Craig4]

I did not! I basically admitted I haven't been at the WTC with my embarrassing mistake about the elevators.

When you said you didn't want to reveal personal information you as much as admitted that you'd been in the WTC. There's no reason for you to say that unless you had been. It's important that you understand that no one looks for honesty or integrity from you. That lie of omission is as good as an admission.

Now how about answering my question about the appropriateness of making a hobby out of the deaths of over 3000 people.

[Dcdrac]

The key prhase is final stages........think about that.......also it is obviously incomplete and unfinished also from that footage there is no clear indication of missing floors, in fact its so low res you cannot make any conclusions about whats inside

[Anders Lindman]

When you said you didn't want to reveal personal information you as much as admitted that you'd been in the WTC. There's no reason for you to say that unless you had been. It's important that you understand that no one looks for honesty or integrity from you. That lie of omission is as good as an admission.

Now how about answering my question about the appropriateness of making a hobby out of the deaths of over 3000 people.

Let's say that over 3000 people died AND the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, don't you think the relatives of the victims would want to know what really happened? And if there were no victims, then wouldn't the general public want to know about that? And if the official 9/11 story really is true, then shouldn't it be able to withstand competing theories? Or do you want an Orwellian silencing of conspiracy research? So you see, in either case I win.

[John Albert]

Why? To have them pancaked in 2001 of course.


That makes no sense.

[John Albert]

Seems like I will have to use mind control techniques on you. ;) For the third time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8052371&postcount=202


What makes you think there are no floors there?

The light is shining through the windows, which are made of glass. "Glass," by the way, is a transparent material which lets light pass through.

[Dcdrac]

Let's say that over 3000 people died AND the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, don't you think the relatives of the victims would want to know what really happened? And if there were no victims, then wouldn't the general public want to know about that? And if the official 9/11 story really is true, then shouldn't it be able to withstand competing theories? Or do you want an Orwellian silencing of conspiracy research? So you see, in either case I win.


The relatives of the victims know who did it and do not need this nonesense getting added to their greif by self regarding fools who beleive any rubbish as long as it feeds into their fantasy world view.

[Anders Lindman]

The key prhase is final stages........think about that.......also it is obviously incomplete and unfinished also from that footage there is no clear indication of missing floors, in fact its so low res you cannot make any conclusions about whats inside

http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/34cedf64095bc8.jpg

"... check out the narrow piece of scaffolding that passed inspection as the 109th floor; Also notice the entire 110th floor is missing and there appears to be now windows on those top floors at all. The scaffolding appears to be on 109 and the scaffolding on top appears to stretch 2 stories high." -- http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-hollow-t21572p13.html

[Anders Lindman]

That makes no sense.

They did manage to make the Patriot act law, didn't they?

[Dcdrac]

the key word here is appears......got that thats your interpretation of what you WANT to see you WNAT there to be no floors so you see no floors, becasue your whole idioitc premise collapses without that and I would expect to see such scafffolding an a buuilding that is almost finsihed if you knew about that film footage you would knwo that man get in therebecasue the buulding wsnot finished and what is that scaffolding resting on......a floor..........

[Anders Lindman]

What makes you think there are no floors there?

The light is shining through the windows, which are made of glass. "Glass," by the way, is a transparent material which lets light pass through.

Maybe, but I think the towers look a bit transparent in that picture. Here is another example: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLh1uhVwrXqr1ZRjDtb6niQ6L_OMRTk l3p4kDvI7a6YK_OFZS-xQLaSYEt

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why?
That makes no sense.


Anders is 110% troll. His statements are intentionally nonsensical and he intentionally argues in circles to waste your time.

[SpitfireIX]

Anders is 110% troll. His statements are intentionally nonsensical and he intentionally argues in circles to waste your time.


+1

Obvious troll is obvious.

[John Albert]

Let's say that over 3000 people died


Yes, let's say that. It is the truth, supported by plenty of evidence.


AND the 9/11 attacks were an inside job


OK, what physical, verifiable evidence do you have to support this idea?


don't you think the relatives of the victims would want to know what really happened?


I'm sure they do want to know what really happened. I'm not convinced that any amount of information can ever satisfy one's need to understand and cope with a tragedy that resulted in the death of a loved one.


And if there were no victims, then wouldn't the general public want to know about that?


Who's saying there are no victims? Why would anyone even make such an absurd and obnoxious suggestion?


And if the official 9/11 story really is true, then shouldn't it be able to withstand competing theories?


Propose a competing theory that fits the known facts and is supported by at least an equal amount of evidence, then provide that evidence and we'll have something to discuss.


Or do you want an Orwellian silencing of conspiracy research?


Nobody's proposing an "Orwellian" anything.

"Research" is based on evidence. Have you got any?


So you see, in either case I win.


"Win" what, exactly?

[Dancing David]

Hypothesis: The reason for the PATRIOT Act is to be able to use the legal system to arrest members of the shadow society.

For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland. Your professor, who is sick to death of reading papers and never liked Moby-Dick anyway, will think you are enormously creative. If you can regularly come up with lunatic interpretations of simple stories, you should major in English.

-Dave Barry

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
So you see, in either case I win.

"Win" what, exactly?

Either the troll of the year award

or

The credulous cretin of the year award

[Anders Lindman]

Strange, here the towers look basically completely opaque yet the sunset is behind the buildings: http://www.egambar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sunset-on-the-world-trade-center.jpg

Maybe they covered up the windows for the hollow floors after a while to prevent the towers from looking hollow in pictures like that.

[Anders Lindman]

For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland. Your professor, who is sick to death of reading papers and never liked Moby-Dick anyway, will think you are enormously creative. If you can regularly come up with lunatic interpretations of simple stories, you should major in English.

-Dave Barry

Then you would have to show the connection between Moby Dick and something other than a whale. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8052834&postcount=218

[JayUtah]

Strange, here the towers look basically completely opaque yet the sunset is behind the buildings: http://www.egambar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sunset-on-the-world-trade-center.jpg
You really can't tell that that's a reflection?

[Anders Lindman]

"Research" is based on evidence. Have you got any?


Yes, see: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8052834&postcount=218

[Anders Lindman]

You really can't tell that that's a reflection?

I wrote: "Strange, here the towers look basically completely opaque yet the sunset is behind the buildings"

[JayUtah]

I wrote: "Strange, here the towers look basically completely opaque yet the sunset is behind the buildings"

What's the significance then of noting that the sun is behind the building?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Strange, here the towers look basically completely opaque yet the sunset is behind the buildings: http://www.egambar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sunset-on-the-world-trade-center.jpg


Which proves that the towers were actually completely solid pillars of steel.

[Craig4]

Let's say that over 3000 people died AND the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, don't you think the relatives of the victims would want to know what really happened? And if there were no victims, then wouldn't the general public want to know about that? And if the official 9/11 story really is true, then shouldn't it be able to withstand competing theories? Or do you want an Orwellian silencing of conspiracy research? So you see, in either case I win.

Let's not pretend like you're some great crusader. Even if 9/11 were an inside job, that would not be discovered by you (which you've yet to produce evidence for). You're not good enough for that.

You said in your one of your own posts that CTs where a hobby and entertainment for you. There's nothing Orwellian about you suffering a social consequence for the poor quality of your work, bad taste (to say the least) and general lack of honesty. You're still free to say whatever you like. What you're not free to do is decide how people react to what you say. If you don't like being called a liar, maybe stop lying. If you don't like being called to task for making a hobby out of a national tragedy, don't make a hobby our of a national tragedy. You're freedom to say what you like is no insulation from being a laughing stock and pariah.

No answer the question. Clearly you understand it so there's only one explanation for your refusal.

[Anders Lindman]

What's the significance then of noting that the sun is behind the building?

Because that's different than this picture: http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg

Perhaps the position of the sun is what makes the difference, OR they had actually covered up the windows where there were no floors.

[Anders Lindman]

You're freedom to say what you like is no insulation from being a laughing stock and pariah.


Sure, you are allowed to laugh. But don't expect any answers from me just so that you can laugh.

[NoahFence]

But every post you make is designed to make us laugh.

Or shake our heads.

[JayUtah]

Because that's different than this picture: http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg

Yes, expectedly so.

Perhaps the position of the sun is what makes the difference...

Yes. If you had bothered to check the secondary phase angle indicators in the second photo, you'd realize the sun is not directly behind the building, and that you're looking at the reflection of the sunlit sky in the windows. And if you had performed some experiments on tinted glass, you'd realize exactly how its optical properties vary with phase angle and how sensitively.

But no, you immediately dove into some lame conspiracy claim. Do you realize that to those of us who spent considerable time in the WTC your claim that it's significantly hollow has less credibility than if you had claimed you were the offspring of Santa Claus and Bigfoot. Seriously, Andrew. Your belief is that absurd.

[JohnnyG]

Because that's different than this picture: http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg

Perhaps the position of the sun is what makes the difference, OR they had actually covered up the windows where there were no floors.

Or it could simply be the angle of the camera. Given the open floor plan common throughout the building, a nearly horizontal camera shot could capture light coming through from the windows on the other side of the building. If the camera were on too much of an angle, guess what would be blocking the light? THE FLOORS!

[Anders Lindman]

For those who think mind control doesn't exist here is an episode of Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory television series about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLkIZ1rygig

[Biscuit]

For those who think mind control doesn't exist here is an episode of Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory television show about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLkIZ1rygig

The same jesse that thought an immigrant detention facility was a FEMA death camp? The same jesse that thought the transportation of coffin liners was proof of FEMA death camps?

Yea, I will pass on that video.:rolleyes:

[Biscuit]

Because that's different than this picture: http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg

Perhaps the position of the sun is what makes the difference, OR they had actually covered up the windows where there were no floors.

OR you don't understand light, photography, and resolution.

[Anders Lindman]

The same jesse that thought an immigrant detention facility was a FEMA death camp? The same jesse that thought the transportation of coffin liners was proof of FEMA death camps?

Yea, I will pass on that video.:rolleyes:

They had found some real mind control experts! I found it very interesting.

[Craig4]

Sure, you are allowed to laugh. But don't expect any answers from me just so that you can laugh.

So, having admitted to having been in the WTC how can you say there were no floors.

[Craig4]

Sure, you are allowed to laugh. But don't expect any answers from me just so that you can laugh.

You forget your place young man.

[Craig4]

They had found some real mind control experts! I found it very interesting.

Seeing as you like to be made the fool, I imagine you would.

[Anders Lindman]

Seeing as you like to be made the fool, I imagine you would.

I'm a bit doubtful about some of the things in the program such as the live demonstration of mind control where they could make a man start limping. That could have been faked, I don't know, but some of the experts were definitely real I think.

[Craig4]

I'm a bit doubtful about some of the things in the program such as the live demonstration of mind control where they could make a man start limping. That could have been faked, I don't know, but some of the experts were definitely real I think.

Just proves my point. Now answer my question young man. The instructions are very clear.

[Anders Lindman]

Just proves my point. Now answer my question young man. The instructions are very clear.

Answer your question to become a laughing stock? No thanks.

[abaddon]

Answer your question to become a laughing stock? No thanks.
But you are.

[Anders Lindman]

But you are.

I like to post entertaining information but not that entertaining. Ha ha.

[abaddon]

I like to post entertaining information but not that entertaining. Ha ha.
But you are still a laughing stock.

[Anders Lindman]

But you are still a laughing stock.

Are you laughing at things I have posted in the past? Then get over it. Let's look ahead instead.

[Tomtomkent]

I like to post entertaining information but not that entertaining. Ha ha.
Or informative. So failure on both claims.

[Anders Lindman]

Or informative. So failure on both claims.

Some of the members on this forum find my posts entertaining. So if my posts fail on you others are more easily entertained it seems.

[JayUtah]

Some of the members on this forum find my posts entertaining. So if my posts fail on you others are more easily entertained it seems.

But can you name anyone who takes you seriously?

[Anders Lindman]

But can you name anyone who takes you seriously?

I cannot speak for other members on this forum. Some members feel a desperate need to cling to some group-think. I wonder why that is. Seems like insecurity to me.

[SpitfireIX]

I'm a bit doubtful about some of the things in the program such as the live demonstration of mind control where they could make a man start limping. That could have been faked, I don't know, but some of the experts were definitely real I think.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604f4807fd7d3b3.jpg

[Anders Lindman]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604f4807fd7d3b3.jpg

The staring at goats experiment was mentioned briefly in Ventura's television program, but it's not exactly mind control.

[NoahFence]

Answer your question to become a laughing stock? No thanks.

Uh...

that ship has sailed.

[JayUtah]

I cannot speak for other members on this forum.

I will, then. No one takes you seriously.

Some members feel a desperate need to cling to some group-think.

Rational agreement is different than group-think. You seem to believe that merit in an idea lies only in its distance from the mainstream, not whether there is any fact to support it. "Clinging" to what the facts clearly dictate is not shameful.

I wonder why that is.

Because if five people all walk into a room and see a red rose in vase on a table, agreement among the five that there is a red rose on the table is not irrational sheeplehood -- it's simply the facts.

Seems like insecurity to me.

Sticks and stones...

[Anders Lindman]

Rational agreement is different than group-think.

Truth is not a democracy.

[Anders Lindman]

Uh...

that ship has sailed.

Then why continue trying to cling to it? ;) Am I really so good at entertaining you?

[JayUtah]

Truth is not a democracy.

So what color is the rose, Anders?

[Anders Lindman]

So what color is the rose, Anders?

Measure the spectrum of the light reflected from the rose and you will get objective data representing the truth.

[John Albert]

The staring at goats experiment was mentioned briefly in Ventura's television program, but it's not exactly mind control.


No, it's not exactly mind control. It's more accurately categorized as "idiocy."

[John Albert]

You seem to believe that merit in an idea lies only in its distance from the mainstream, not whether there is any fact to support it.


The word for that kind of thinking is "occultism."

[JayUtah]

Measure the spectrum of the light reflected from the rose and you will get objective data representing the truth.

And when five people do that and all come up red, why do you always say yellow? Just to avoid "group-think?"

[Anders Lindman]

And when five people do that and all come up red, why do you always say yellow? Just to avoid "group-think?"

And why is it that if I would go to a conspiracy theory forum people would agree with me? It's because it's about beliefs. Truth is not dependent on beliefs. What you have is basically dogma. Dogma means unquestioned belief.

[JayUtah]

And why is it that if I would go to a conspiracy theory forum people would agree with me?

Because they're just as irrational as you are.

It's because it's about beliefs.

Yes. You spout your ill-informed belief and call it truth. Which is like coiling up dog poop on a plate and calling it a doughnut. You can't change the fundamental nature of the nonsense you advocate, nor can you escape your bias without first acknowledging it.

Truth is not dependent on beliefs.

Correct. Truth derives from independently verifiable facts -- something that is as far away from the way you operate as it can possibly be. You latch onto every rumor and wild innuendo and unsupported claim and cling to it desperately while ignoring pertinent facts. Why? Because you have an irrational bias against what you label "mainstream."

What you have is basically dogma.

You wish. What we have is five people crowded around the spectrometer and observing that the needle points to red. What you have is some unsubstantiated rumor from some web site that the rose really is yellow. And you'll desperately cling to whatever pseudo-argument means you don't have to agree with the "mainstream."

Dogma means unquestioned belief.

Yes, and I have amply demonstrated how little you question your beliefs.

You want to come here and change our beliefs, but you offer us nothing but rumor and nonsense. And when we rightly and rationally decide not to forego the mountain of evidence and observation that supports our belief, you just start calling people closed-minded.

You aren't some crusader for truth. You're just a gullible person who will believe practically anything that isn't labeled "mainstream," no matter how absurd.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, and I have amply demonstrated how little you question your beliefs.

I don't BELIEVE the WTC towers were hollow. It's simply a speculative conspiracy theory. You on the other hand have the belief of that theory being unquestionable wrong. And you could be correct of course BUT you could also be wrong! So it's you (I mean 'you' as the hive mind on this forum and not necessarily you personally) who have the dogma here.

Your argument is basically: "Ten billion flies can't be wrong: **** tastes good." :D

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

[JayUtah]

I don't BELIEVE the WTC towers were hollow. It's simply a speculative conspiracy theory.

Yes, you've used this excuse before. The problem in every case is that you cling to your "speculative conspiracy theory" in the face of certain fact. You try to make it sound like it's a conflict between two equally supportable beliefs. But it never is; it's a conflict between your knee-jerk belief in just about every "non-mainstream" absurdity and patently evident facts.

You on the other hand have the belief of that theory being unquestionable wrong.

No, I have the knowledge that it's wrong. This is something you evidently don't understand. You see only "belief" and are too closed-minded to suppose that something stronger may in fact exist. You write off other people's hard-earned knowledge as if it were nothing. You have no appreciation for the concept of knowledge, which is why no one takes you seriously. You are even so closed-mindedly arrogant as to question what other people observe, when you yourself have nothing stronger than idle, factually-bankrupt supposition.

Your argument is basically...

Don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that my facts trump your uninformed belief. Every time. Trying to write it off as "group-think" is the height of desperation.

[Anders Lindman]

No, I have the knowledge that it's wrong.

But you haven't convinced me of that yet. You need to show some proof.

[twinstead]

But you haven't convinced me of that yet. You need to show some proof.

What would you accept as "proof"?

[Anders Lindman]

What would you accept as "proof"?

For me personally, although hardly officially valid :D, it would for example be a video with a helicopter view where all the floors could be clearly seen in the upper half of the towers. Here is such video except it shows what looks like hollow towers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fZgEl5PKQ

To be clear, I do NOT consider the above video to be any evidence for hollow towers, but nor does it convince me that all floors really were there.

[John Albert]

I don't BELIEVE the WTC towers were hollow. It's simply a speculative conspiracy theory.


It's not even a "theory." Theories are based on evidence. What you have there is nothing more than a goofy, crackpot notion.


You on the other hand have the belief of that theory being unquestionable wrong.


It's not unquestionable. It just fails to stand up to even the barest of scrutiny.


And you could be correct of course BUT you could also be wrong!


No. We are not wrong because the truth about the construction of the WTC is actually a set of very well known facts, and facts are not something you just make up out of thin air.


So it's you (I mean 'you' as the hive mind on this forum and not necessarily you personally) who have the dogma here.


Critical analysis is not dogma. You are operating on a false assumption of what dogma means.


Your argument is basically: "Ten billion flies can't be wrong: <snip> tastes good." :D


Nobody said anything about flies. It's not about blindly following the mainstream. It's about understanding the process of critical thinking and following the objective, verifiable facts instead of just believing the craziest ideas that somebody might post on an Internet forum.

[Anders Lindman]

Critical analysis is not dogma.

True, but when people start with the assumption that the mainstream version of something is automatically true, then that's dogma.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't BELIEVE the WTC towers were hollow. It's simply a speculative conspiracy theory.


Your character puts a lot of effort into defending things he pulls out of his ass and doesn't even believe. I'd be interested in his motivation for this activity.

[CompusMentus]

What would you accept as "proof"?



.....it would for example be a video.....


By that token, the many images that exist of the airliner impacts on 9/11 indicates you are now a "planehugger". Oh dear, your pals over at the Icke Asylum might get a little upset.

Compus

[Anders Lindman]

Your character puts a lot of effort into defending things he pulls out of his ass and doesn't even believe. I'd be interested in his motivation for this activity.

It's a way of testing different ideas. At first I thought the hollow tower theory was completely kooky but then I saw some evidence pointing to it being at least possible as a form of extreme conspiracy. Judy Wood has said that the WTC towers went poof and the debris at Ground Zero was way too small. And that is a possible claim I think. But in the next moment she starts talking about energy beams from outer space, and that idea I will not even look into because even I have a limit to far-out ideas, lol. And the list of missing things from Ground Zero I posted earlier points to the possibility that those things were not even there in the first place!

[Anders Lindman]

By that token, the many images that exist of the airliner impacts on 9/11 indicates you are now a "planehugger". Oh dear, your pals over at the Icke Asylum might get a little upset.

Compus

The video must be at least somewhat convincing. The images and videos of the supposed planes don't look convincing at all. So no, I haven't changed my mind about that.

[CompusMentus]

So no, I haven't changed my mind about that.


Thought so.

You're full of it.

Compus

[TheRedWorm]

Your character puts a lot of effort into defending things he pulls out of his ass and doesn't even believe. I'd be interested in his motivation for this activity.


Trolling, more than likely. An action that is its own reward; especially when people respond.

[Craig4]

Answer your question to become a laughing stock? No thanks.

That ship has sailed.

[JayUtah]

But you haven't convinced me of that yet. You need to show some proof.

What makes you think I take you seriously?

Even if you were serious, experience has shown that no amount of proof will drag you away from the fringe beliefs you so desperately cling to. I think it's far more entertaining to watch you try to prove to someone that his knowledge is false. It only shows the extreme desperation of the conspiracy crowd and their utter disconnection from any form of reality -- all the while lecturing us about how we're so closed-minded.

Besides, I'm giving you my knowledge of the interior of the WTC. Things I've seen with my own eyes. Every time I do that, you just call me a liar. So no, you don't get to be taken seriously. You have to earn that.

[Craig4]

So Anders, are you going to answer my question?

[Anders Lindman]

So Anders, are you going to answer my question?

So you can have something toxic to chew on? Don't think so. It would be harmful for you.

[Tomtomkent]

So you can have something toxic to chew on? Don't think so. It would be harmful for you.

So... that begs the question why post here if you do not intend to engage in discussion?

[Anders Lindman]

So... that begs the question why post here if you do not intend to engage in discussion?

I engage in civilized discussions. You don't have to be a professor in psychology to understand that repeating the same question umpteen times produces naughty and toxic replies.

[Tomtomkent]

I engage in civilized discussions.
Then feel free to start being civilised any time soon.

You don't have to be a professor in psychology to understand that repeating the same question umpteen times produces naughty and toxic replies.

Well, if you DID engage in civilised discussion this would not be the case. In a civilised discussion product would have been an answer. Normally after being asked once and with out the need for the question to have been repeated. Feel free to supply an answer when ever you wish to engage in a civilised discussion.

[Tomtomkent]

So... that begs the question why post here if you do not intend to engage in discussion?

By the way, you forgot to answer the question here. You falsely claimed to have engaged in a discussion, before making an excuse for avoiding a direct question. Neither of which explains why you are posting statements then refusing to actually discuss what WAS posted.

I know, the irony of doing that in a post asking why you do that is annoying.

[Anders Lindman]

By the way, you forgot to answer the question here.

I believe I have already answered the question about the victims. I admitted somewhere that there may be real victims. I don't see the point in going on endlessly repeating it.

[Tomtomkent]

I believe I have already answered the question about the victims. I admitted somewhere that there may be real victims. I don't see the point in going on endlessly repeating it.

You seem not be able to distinguish between writing something in response to the question and actually supplying an answer that contains the information required with out room for ambiguity.

Why should the question not be repeated until you actually provide a satisfactory answer in place of a handwave?

[Anders Lindman]

You seem not be able to distinguish between writing something in response to the question and actually supplying an answer that contains the information required with out room for ambiguity.

Why should the question not be repeated until you actually provide a satisfactory answer in place of a handwave?

Several conspiracy researchers have pointed out how the victims could have been faked. Just a year or so ago I firmly believed the victims were real (except the passengers in the supposed planes). Today I think it's possible that the victims could have been faked. The victims could also be real, I don't know. Let's keep all options on the table.

[Tomtomkent]

Several conspiracy researchers have pointed out how the victims could have been faked. Just a year or so ago I firmly believed the victims were real (except the passengers in the supposed planes). Today I think it's possible that the victims could have been faked. The victims could also be real, I don't know. Let's keep all options on the table.

What a way to fail to answer again!

So which of the three almost-answers you just provided should we accept as your answer?
1) The victims were real.
2) The victims were fake.
3) You don't know.

[Anders Lindman]

What a way to fail to answer again!

So which of the three almost-answers you just provided should we accept as your answer?
1) The victims were real.
2) The victims were fake.
3) You don't know.

Answer 3!

[Craig4]

So you can have something toxic to chew on? Don't think so. It would be harmful for you.

My, that's a lot of courage you're not showing. So pretty much you can't bring yourself to admitting what everyone here has figured out, that you're entertained by the violent deaths of 3000 people.

[Dancing David]

Answer your question to become a laughing stock? No thanks.

Too late!

:D

[Mashuna]

Several conspiracy researchers have pointed out how the victims could have been faked. Just a year or so ago I firmly believed the victims were real (except the passengers in the supposed planes). Today I think it's possible that the victims could have been faked. The victims could also be real, I don't know. Let's keep all options on the table.

I don't think you've got a table.

[JayUtah]

I engage in civilized discussions.

What forum do you do that on?

You don't have to be a professor in psychology to understand that repeating the same question umpteen times produces naughty and toxic replies.

You don't have to be a professor in psychology to realize that evading the same question umpteen times is a sign of insincerity and deception.

[Loss Leader]

I think it's possible that the victims could have been faked. The victims could also be real, I don't know. Let's keep all options on the table.


Why don't you just visit their survivors? There have to be something like 10,000 people who were closely related to the 9/11 victims and a million who knew at least one victim.

Here, I'll start you off: Janet Alonso. When I go to the place where I used to see her, she's not there anymore.

It's not like it's hard to research this stuff first hand. All you have to do is want to.

[Anders Lindman]

Why don't you just visit their survivors? There have to be something like 10,000 people who were closely related to the 9/11 victims and a million who knew at least one victim.

Here, I'll start you off: Janet Alonso. When I go to the place where I used to see her, she's not there anymore.

It's not like it's hard to research this stuff first hand. All you have to do is want to.

But what about this:

"WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans. ... “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said." -- http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/3000-deaths-from-911-not-in

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not like it's hard to research this stuff first hand. All you have to do is want to.


Anders has, in the not-to-distant-past, expressed an explicit desire not to personally pursue the validity of the things he says or claims to believe. His M.O. is to troll others into bringing the evidence within arm's reach so that he can easily bat it aside. He's very comfortable in his intellectual La-Z-Boy.

All part of the performance, of course.

ETA: See? :rolleyes:

[Tomtomkent]

But what about this:

"WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans. ... “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said." -- http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/3000-deaths-from-911-not-in

What about it?

There is no evidence to suggest the discrepency is because "nobody died", nor is that relevent to the question of if people died. That is only relevent to how the repurcussions were handled in an administrative sense.

[SpitfireIX]

But what about this:

"WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans. ... “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said." -- http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/3000-deaths-from-911-not-in


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one because you probably don't understand how the US Social Security system works. See here (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-todd-beamer-theory.html) for a detailed explanation.

[Anders Lindman]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one because you probably don't understand how the US Social Security system works. See here (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-todd-beamer-theory.html) for a detailed explanation.

Are you saying 3000 victims are missing in the statistics because of the below reasons?

* The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).

* The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.

* The person did not participate in the Social Security program.

* Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.

* A recent death may not be indexed yet.

* Human error.

Can that really explain all the 3000 missing victims in the statistics? And don't you think the New York congresswoman knew about that before demanding answers about the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans?

[Tomtomkent]

Are you saying 3000 victims are missing in the statistics because of the below reasons?

* The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).

* The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.

* The person did not participate in the Social Security program.

* Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.

* A recent death may not be indexed yet.

* Human error.

Can that really explain all the 3000 missing victims in the statistics?

So are you suggesting a massive and impossible conspiracy is more likely than mismanaged data?

That says a lot more about your mindset than it does about the likelyhood of three thousand faked deaths.

[Anders Lindman]

What about it?

There is no evidence to suggest the discrepency is because "nobody died", nor is that relevent to the question of if people died. That is only relevent to how the repurcussions were handled in an administrative sense.

There were 6,298 deaths registered on 9/11 when there should have been over 9,000! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckSSIGt50Q

I don't think such huge discrepancy can be dismissed so easily.

[Anders Lindman]

So are you suggesting a massive and impossible conspiracy is more likely than mismanaged data?

That says a lot more about your mindset than it does about the likelyhood of three thousand faked deaths.

It seems to suggest a huge conspiracy, yes. If the quote about the New York Congresswoman is correct, then I think that's significant. At least it should be investigated further I think.

[Tomtomkent]

There were 6,298 deaths registered on 9/11 when there should have been over 9,000! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckSSIGt50Q

I don't think such huge discrepancy can be dismissed so easily.

Once again, wether or not you believe this is likely or not is not the question. Are you seriously suggesting it is less likely than the people never having existed, despite other forms of their existence?

At exactly what point do you assume clerical errors become impossible? Given that the administration was acting under unprecedneted pressure, with a far larger case load than expected, and not all victims were identified immediately?

Are you unaware of equally large errors made by other administrative arms under less unique circumstances? The defecits in immigration records in my own country spring to mind.

Administrative errors are precedented, the conspiracy you describe is not. So allow me to ask one final time in the hope of a direct answer.

Are you suggesting the administrative errors are less likely than the conspiracy you describe? (Note that is not asking if you believe the errors or not, please answer the question that WAS asked).

[Tomtomkent]

It seems to suggest a huge conspiracy, yes. If the quote about the New York Congresswoman is correct, then I think that's significant. At least it should be investigated further I think.

No that is answering what you think the stats are suggestive of. I wanted to know which of the two possibilities so far mentioned you thought was more likely. Feel free to answer any time.

[Anders Lindman]

No that is answering what you think the stats are suggestive of. I wanted to know which of the two possibilities so far mentioned you thought was more likely. Feel free to answer any time.

More investigation is needed about that. But I think we should drop it. Because it could really show that there is a huge conspiracy. And people wouldn't perhaps be able to handle the truth about that.

[Tomtomkent]

More investigation is needed about that. But I think we should drop it. Because it could really show that there is a huge conspiracy. And people wouldn't perhaps be able to handle the truth about that.

Would you like to try again, with out needless speculation or hyperbole. I did not ask if you thought an investigation was required, or what the consequences would be, or if the discussion should be dropped.

I asked which of the two possibilities mentioned so far to explain the discrepency in data, was more likely. An admistrative error, or the massive conspiracy you describe.

It is very simple to answer: You tell me which you consider to be more likely.

[Anders Lindman]

Would you like to try again, with out needless speculation or hyperbole. I did not ask if you thought an investigation was required, or what the consequences would be, or if the discussion should be dropped.

I asked which of the two possibilities mentioned so far to explain the discrepency in data, was more likely. An admistrative error, or the massive conspiracy you describe.

It is very simple to answer: You tell me which you consider to be more likely.

I have dropped that issue. It could be dangerous to look too much into it. If you want to research it further, please go ahead, but me, I'm dropping that baby like a piece of hot coal! Ouch!

[Tomtomkent]

I have dropped that issue. It could be dangerous to look too much into it. If you want to research it further, please go ahead, but me, I'm dropping that baby like a piece of hot coal! Ouch!

Odd, as I am not asking you to look further into either possibility at all. I asked which was more likely.

Can I assume you are unable to answer?

Have you bitten the dust again?

[Anders Lindman]

Odd, as I am not asking you to look further into either possibility at all. I asked which was more likely.

Can I assume you are unable to answer?

Have you bitten the dust again?

I have already replied that more investigation is needed before I will answer that question, and I also pointed out later that I will not look into it further. This means, in case you don't understand what I mean, that I will not answer that question, and nor will I answer any repetition of that question.

[Tomtomkent]

I have already replied that more investigation is needed before I will answer that question, and I also pointed out later that I will not look into it further. This means, in case you don't understand what I mean, that I will not answer that question, and nor will I answer any repetition of that question.

Then would it not have been more civil to simply reply with the statement "I can not answe that question" when first asked, rather than answering different questions instead?

Why did you answer different questions, or give none-answers instead of simply saying you couldn't answer?

[Anders Lindman]

Then would it not have been more civil to simply reply with the statement "I can not answe that question" when first asked, rather than answering different questions instead?

Why did you answer different questions, or give none-answers instead of simply saying you couldn't answer?

Ah! I can change my mind very quickly. So even between two posts I may sometimes, hopefully not too often, change my mind.

[Tomtomkent]

Ah! I can change my mind very quickly. So even between two posts I may sometimes, hopefully not too often, change my mind.

You changed your mind about which question you answered?

The question would have remained the same.

Even if you DID change your mind, about what? If you couldn't answer the question then you had nothing to change your mind about because you COULDN'T answer. If you COULD, then you still answered different questions.

Why?

[SpitfireIX]

Are you saying 3000 victims are missing in the statistics because of the below reasons?

* The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).


If the person was not receiving benefits and left no one to receive survivors' benefits, there was no need to report the death to the Social Security Administration.

*The person did not participate in the Social Security program.


372 foreign nationals (not counting the terrorists) died in the attacks. Guess what? They didn't participate in Social Security. :rolleyes:

* Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.


This would apply to any participants with minor children.

* Human error.


"Never attribute to malice . . ."

Can that really explain all the 3000 missing victims in the statistics? And don't you think the New York congresswoman knew about that before demanding answers about the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans?


She obviously didn't, or she would have only asked about the 2600 Americans.

Further, they aren't all "missing." Many are listed, and have been. If you'd bothered to read the post I linked, you'd see that even the conspiracy theorists who started this garbage said that they were able to find about a quarter of the passengers on the planes in the index. Fail.

[Anders Lindman]

You changed your mind about which question you answered?

The question would have remained the same.

Even if you DID change your mind, about what? If you couldn't answer the question then you had nothing to change your mind about because you COULDN'T answer. If you COULD, then you still answered different questions.

Why?

There are two reasons for why I will not answer the question. The first reason is that I need more investigation into it. And then someone could ask me to do more research about it. But then after that I added another reason for why not to answer the question. So the change of mind was only about adding the other reason if I remember correctly.

So, what do you know about the Patriot act? ;)

[Tomtomkent]

There are two reasons for why I will not answer the question. The first reason is that I need more investigation into it. And then someone could ask me to do more research about it. But then after that I added another reason for why not to answer the question. So the change of mind was only about adding the other reason if I remember correctly.

All very interesting, but not what I asked at all is it?

You should know that, you quoted the post in your response, like this:

You changed your mind about which question you answered?

The question would have remained the same.

Even if you DID change your mind, about what? If you couldn't answer the question then you had nothing to change your mind about because you COULDN'T answer. If you COULD, then you still answered different questions.

Why?

You see, the response you gave didn't answer either question I asked. About what you changed your mind on, or why you would not simply say you could not answer the question before it was repeated.

Now I know this will be moderated, I am fully expecting it to be moved to Abandon All Hope any moment. But, if you are expecting to discuss a serious matter I wish to be sure you are capable of answering direct questions. If you are not going to answer direct questions I want to understand why, to know if there a reason I can work around in the discussion, or if you are childish troll determined to look more like a childish troll with each and every response.

For example, you have repeatedly explained why you wont answer a question NOW when you are asked why you did not say that when originally asked. And why you instead chose to answer ENTIRELY DIFFERENT questions.

Just like you have done again.

Will you answe the questions that are asked, or will you continue to change your mind about what questions have been asked?

[Anders Lindman]

All very interesting, but not what I asked at all is it?

You should know that, you quoted the post in your response, like this:



You see, the response you gave didn't answer either question I asked. About what you changed your mind on, or why you would not simply say you could not answer the question before it was repeated.

Now I know this will be moderated, I am fully expecting it to be moved to Abandon All Hope any moment. But, if you are expecting to discuss a serious matter I wish to be sure you are capable of answering direct questions. If you are not going to answer direct questions I want to understand why, to know if there a reason I can work around in the discussion, or if you are childish troll determined to look more like a childish troll with each and every response.

For example, you have repeatedly explained why you wont answer a question NOW when you are asked why you did not say that when originally asked. And why you instead chose to answer ENTIRELY DIFFERENT questions.

Just like you have done again.

Will you answe the questions that are asked, or will you continue to change your mind about what questions have been asked?

I don't understand what you mean here. If it's some convoluted attempt to ask the same question again then I will not fall for that.

[Tomtomkent]

I don't understand what you mean here. If it's some convoluted attempt to ask the same question again then I will not fall for that.

I just asked:
Will you answer the questions that are asked, or will you continue to change your mind about what questions have been asked?
And you didn't answer the question that was asked. I can only assume you DID change your mind about what question was asked (again).

I would ask why you don't give straight answers to direct questions. But you wouldn't give an answer.

The point is made. You wont answer diect questions, you wont admit when you can't answer the question until it has been asked repeatedly.

There is no way of having any form of dialogue with you, because you can't engage in an adult discussion. Feel free to chalk this up to a "win" and convince yourself that you somehow came out of this looking big and clever.

But if you can't answer the same question you were asked, how can there ever be a meaningful discussion? On this subject or any other?

[Anders Lindman]

Prediction: There is no official public information about the total number of U.S. citizens that have been arrested under the Patriot act.

[abaddon]

Prediction: There is no official public information about the total number of U.S. citizens that have been arrested under the Patriot act.
Publicly available. Furthermore, publicly available are defeats of the Patriot act in court. Fail.

[Loss Leader]

But what about this:

"WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans. ... “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said." -- http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/3000-deaths-from-911-not-in



Seriously? A story from Naplesnews.Com about one question by Rep. Carolyn Maloney trumps primary research you could make calling victims' families?

Do you even know if Maloney believes there's any chance that the 9/11 victims were not killed or whether the attacks were carried out as believed? As she was a major force in victims' rights, government intelligence reforms, and all issues regarding 9/11, I would think her views on the matter would be quite non-insane.

However, you don't have to speculate. You don't have to wonder even fora minute. You can ask her yourself. Call her at: (202) 225-7944

You won't.

[Anders Lindman]

Seriously? A story from Naplesnews.Com about one question by Rep. Carolyn Maloney trumps primary research you could make calling victims' families?

Do you even know if Maloney believes there's any chance that the 9/11 victims were not killed or whether the attacks were carried out as believed? As she was a major force in victims' rights, government intelligence reforms, and all issues regarding 9/11, I would think her views on the matter would be quite non-insane.

However, you don't have to speculate. You don't have to wonder even fora minute. You can ask her yourself. Call her at: (202) 225-7944

You won't.

I will mostly focus on the Patriot act in this thread.

[Anders Lindman]

Publicly available. Furthermore, publicly available are defeats of the Patriot act in court. Fail.

I didn't find any such information.

[JayUtah]

I have already replied that more investigation is needed before I will answer that question, and I also pointed out later that I will not look into it further. This means, in case you don't understand what I mean, that I will not answer that question, and nor will I answer any repetition of that question.

Translation: I'm too lazy to provide evidence, so don't ask for any.

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>...
You won't.

Of course not. Anders is:

Trolling, more than likely. An action that is its own reward; especially when people respond.

[Anders Lindman]

A scary scenario is that the 9/11 attacks were meant to force the U.S. government and the rest of people in authority to do a massive coverup of the event. Not only in America but all over the world.

And the Patriot act was devised as means for secretly arresting those people who have been forced to do a coverup. After arrest those arrested are secretly put through a mind control program so that they basically become zombies without self-awareness working for the secret cabal.

By this insidious scheme the secret cabal of mind control now spreads like a cancer within the U.S. power structure and is starting to spread in similar fashion all over the world turning the entire planet into a nightmarish New World Order controlled by a hive mind cabal of mind controlled zombies.

[Anders Lindman]

Let's say that one million U.S. citizens have by now been arrested under the Patriot act and put through a mind control program. Then basically the whole U.S. power structure is by now a hive mind of mind controlled zombies.

[Anders Lindman]

Wow, on Coast to Coast today an undercover FBI agent described how he had worked as a leader for the white supremacy movement in America. :eek:

I wonder about conspiracy forums like this. If the FBI or other agencies have agents posting here. Or maybe they are mostly interested in illegal activities, and this forum is hardly illegal, lol.

[Mojo]

And when five people do that and all come up red, why do you always say yellow? Just to avoid "group-think?"


He doesn't say it is yellow, he says that he is undecided about its colour - after posting a lot of quotations and links to conspiracy sites that claim it is yellow.

[Anders Lindman]

He doesn't say it is yellow, he says that he is undecided about its colour - after posting a lot of quotations and links to conspiracy sites that claim it is yellow.

I think there is always a gradual scale of probability for a conspiracy theory. And I of course often have another scale than a debunker or even a conspiracy theorist. And the scale changes when I get new information. A debunker often seeminly has a scale that says 0% probability for the conspiracy theory and 100% certainty for the official version, and if a conspiracy is exposed then the conspiracy theorist will have to make an epic flip flop in opinion.

[Mojo]

A scary scenario is that the 9/11 attacks were meant to force the U.S. government and the rest of people in authority to do a massive coverup of the event. Not only in America but all over the world.

And the Patriot act was devised as means for secretly arresting those people who have been forced to do a coverup. After arrest those arrested are secretly put through a mind control program so that they basically become zombies without self-awareness working for the secret cabal.

By this insidious scheme the secret cabal of mind control now spreads like a cancer within the U.S. power structure and is starting to spread in similar fashion all over the world turning the entire planet into a nightmarish New World Order controlled by a hive mind cabal of mind controlled zombies.

Let's say that one million U.S. citizens have by now been arrested under the Patriot act and put through a mind control program. Then basically the whole U.S. power structure is by now a hive mind of mind controlled zombies.


You have no evidence whatsoever for this nonsense, do you?

[Mojo]

I think there is always a gradual scale of probability for a conspiracy theory. And I of course often have another scale than a debunker or even a conspiracy theorist. And the scale changes when I get new information.


Which is why you don't read actual sources of information when they are provided.

[Anders Lindman]

You have no evidence whatsoever for this nonsense, do you?

No, the one million citizens arrested under the Patriot act is an extreme speculation. And the scary scenario about using the Patriot act for secret arrest and mind control is also kind of like a worst case speculation.

But I have actually searched a lot (well, some at least) for the total number of U.S. citizens arrested under the Patriot act and didn't find anything.

[Mojo]

But I have actually searched a lot (well, some at least) for the total number of U.S. citizens arrested under the Patriot act and didn't find anything.


I suspect that if you start getting close you will decide that "it could be dangerous to look too much into it".

Have you tried finding the total number of US citizens arrested under any other act?

[Anders Lindman]

I suspect that if you start getting close you will decide that "it could be dangerous to look too much into it".

Have you tried finding the total number of US citizens arrested under any other act?

"Estimated Number of Arrests United States, 2009: 13,687,241" -- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html

:jaw-dropp That's a huge number. It doesn't include terrorism, but it says: All other offenses: 3,764,672 and I don't know if that includes arrests under the Patriot act.

[Mojo]

"Estimated Number of Arrests United States, 2009: 13,687,241" -- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html

:jaw-dropp That's a huge number. It doesn't include terrorism, but it says: All other offenses: 3,764,672 and I don't know if that includes arrests under the Patriot act.


Have you managed to find out how many US citzens have been arrested under any specific act?

[Anders Lindman]

Have you managed to find out how many US citzens have been arrested under any specific act?

But isn't the Patriot act different than ordinary law enforcement acts? With special courts and whatnot?

[Tomtomkent]

But isn't the Patriot act different than ordinary law enforcement acts? With special courts and whatnot?


Huh. A response that in no way answers the direct question you were asked.

What a surprising turn of events!

[Mojo]

But isn't the Patriot act different than ordinary law enforcement acts? With special courts and whatnot?


Have you managed to find out how many US citzens have been arrested under any specific act?

[Anders Lindman]

Have you managed to find out how many US citzens have been arrested under any specific act?

Here is statistics for something called the Clery Act:

"The statistics in this brochure are published in accordance with the standards and guidelines used by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook and the relevant federal law (the Clery Act)." -- http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37475

[Anders Lindman]

"Data - "Crime - Data" data concerning crime ordered by data year and subject of the data in parentheses.

Law and policy - "Crime - Law and Policy" The Controlled Substances Act and information related to it.

... arrests logged in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports ... In 2009, arrests for drug law violations declined slightly (-2.3%) to 1,663,582." -- http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime

[Mojo]

Here is statistics for something called the Clery Act:

"The statistics in this brochure are published in accordance with the standards and guidelines used by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook and the relevant federal law (the Clery Act)." -- http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=37475


How many US citizens were arrested under the Clery Act?

[ladmo]

Premise: The patriot is too big to have been written so quickly after 9.11.01 that is must have been written beforehand.

Evidence: You claim Alex Jones said on his radio show that President Bush signed the authorization to attack Afghanistan one week before 9.11.01. You have no prove Alex said this and can not recall if Alex provided a source.

Conclusion: Your evidence, if it did exist and was sourced, is unrelated to your premise. Your premise has no supporting evidence.

Did I miss anything?

I am not an Alex Jones fan; he may have gotten his information from a couple of sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

... I do not vouch for either one of the stories or for Alex Jones.

[Anders Lindman]

How many US citizens were arrested under the Clery Act?

That was only for a small part of the population. Similar statistics will have to be gathered for the rest of the population and added. The statistics in my post after that, about another act, is for the entire U.S. population.

[ladmo]

How many US citizens were arrested under the Clery Act?

The Clery Act is not an enforcement tool; it is a guideline on how to report. If the guideline is not followed, the institution could face penalties but the individual arrested or charged with the crime is not charged with violations to the Clery Act.

[Mojo]

The Clery Act is not an enforcement tool; it is a guideline on how to report. If the guideline is not followed, the institution could face penalties but the individual arrested or charged with the crime is not charged with violations to the Clery Act.


I know, it was immediately apparent from the page Anders linked to, which he had evidently not read. My question was somewhat rhetorical, but he doesn't seem to have noticed that either.

[Anders Lindman]

Arrest under the Patriot act?

"U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrested, questioned and released; Asian negotiations continue

As predicted, the collapse of the Satan worshipping financial mafia is accelerating. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was detained for questioning by New York police on February 24th and was released after giving evidence about many high level financial criminals, according to New York police sources. “In most cases we have to slap people to get them to talk but in his case we had to slap him to shut him up,” one of the interrogators joked. Geithner has been released but is accompanied at all times by an armed deputy to make sure he does not leave the country. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is also proving to be very talkative, sources in Europe say. Berlusconi has been released. Meanwhile, meetings between White Dragon Society representatives and South Korean government officials last week in Seoul were very productive." -- Full article (for paying members): http://benjaminfulford.net/2012/02/27/u-s-treasury-secretary-timothy-geithner-arrested-questioned-and-released-asian-negotiations-continue/

[SpitfireIX]

Arrest under the Patriot act?

"U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrested, questioned and released; Asian negotiations continue

As predicted, the collapse of the Satan worshipping financial mafia is accelerating. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was detained for questioning by New York police on February 24th and was released after giving evidence about many high level financial criminals, according to New York police sources. “In most cases we have to slap people to get them to talk but in his case we had to slap him to shut him up,” one of the interrogators joked. Geithner has been released but is accompanied at all times by an armed deputy to make sure he does not leave the country. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is also proving to be very talkative, sources in Europe say. Berlusconi has been released. Meanwhile, meetings between White Dragon Society representatives and South Korean government officials last week in Seoul were very productive." -- Full article (for paying members): http://benjaminfulford.net/2012/02/27/u-s-treasury-secretary-timothy-geithner-arrested-questioned-and-released-asian-negotiations-continue/


Here is the third paragraph of the entire article, reposted (http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-treasury-secretary-timothy-geithner-arrested-qu/) on an Occupy Wall Street forum:

The most interesting revelation given by the Rothschilds is that Queen Victoria was actually the illegitimate daughter of Nathaniel Rothschild. That means Rothschild’s had managed to place family members at the head of the British, German and Russian empires by the time World War I started. Hitler was also a Rothschild who wanted to be crowned King of the world and who helped found Israel by chasing the Jews out of Europe. Their infiltration of the highest levels of world power continued in the post war period. So, in the big picture of things we are witnessing the collapse of the Rothschild attempt to crown themselves as monarchs of a world government with a capital in Jerusalem.


:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The Rothschilds must be the most incompetent mob family ever. All that, over decades, and they still can't seem to wrest control of the world from the all-powerful nobody. They can't even just do stuff directly; for some reason it has to be all creeping-in-the-shadows.

[yodaluver28]

Satan worshipping financial mafia?

Queen Victoria & Hitler were Rothschilds?

The Treasury Secretary of the United States was arrested and interrogated by the NYPD while some nebulous "White Dragon Family" is negotiating with South Korea and no one except this paranoid nutcase knows about any of it?

http://home.comcast.net/%7Eyodaluver28/SBP1-1.gif (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eyodaluver28/SBP1-1.gif)

[Anders Lindman]

The Treasury Secretary of the United States was arrested and interrogated by the NYPD ... and no one except this paranoid nutcase knows about any of it?


That would fit an arrest under the Patriot act. Then they don't need to tell CNN about the arrest. And they can choose to tell it to only some people, such as Fulford.

[yodaluver28]

That would fit an arrest under the Patriot act. Then they don't need to tell CNN about the arrest. And they can choose to tell it to only some people, such as Fulford.

Patriot Act or no Patriot Act, there is absolutely no way that the sitting US Treasury Secretary, the man who is 5th in the line of presidential succession, could be arrested or even questioned for anything in a presidential election year without it being a massive story. Especially if an NYPD source was willing to blab about it. And if that source wanted the story out, they wouldn't be blabbing to some nut on the internet, they'd blab to CNN. Or ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

[Craig4]

On February 24th Geithner was giving interviews, one too Bloomberg and another to CNBC's "Closing Bell". At about 1600 he was in Washington DC giving one of the interviews. The next day he departed for a trip to Mexico. See, this is what people like the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States do all day. They work on policy issues, talk to the press and meet with foreign government officials. They don't worry about silly little made up fairy stories about families who don't exist and don't run the world.

[Anders Lindman]

Patriot Act or no Patriot Act, there is absolutely no way that the sitting US Treasury Secretary, the man who is 5th in the line of presidential succession, could be arrested or even questioned for anything in a presidential election year without it being a massive story. Especially if an NYPD source was willing to blab about it. And if that source wanted the story out, they wouldn't be blabbing to some nut on the internet, they'd blab to CNN. Or ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

But with the Patriot act they can arrest someone in secret! They don't even need to tell Barack Obama about arresting the Treasury Secretary.

[Anders Lindman]

On February 24th Geithner was giving interviews, one too Bloomberg and another to CNBC's "Closing Bell". At about 1600 he was in Washington DC giving one of the interviews. The next day he departed for a trip to Mexico. See, this is what people like the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States do all day. They work on policy issues, talk to the press and meet with foreign government officials. They don't worry about silly little made up fairy stories about families who don't exist and don't run the world.

What if he was released on the morning of February 24th? Then he would still have been able to meet Bloomberg and CNBC etc.

[Mojo]

Here is the third paragraph of the entire article, reposted (http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-treasury-secretary-timothy-geithner-arrested-qu/) on an Occupy Wall Street forum:


The most interesting revelation given by the Rothschilds is that Queen Victoria was actually the illegitimate daughter of Nathaniel Rothschild. That means Rothschild’s had managed to place family members at the head of the British, German and Russian empires by the time World War I started. Hitler was also a Rothschild who wanted to be crowned King of the world and who helped found Israel by chasing the Jews out of Europe.

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:


It's David Icke's lizards again. ;)

[Mojo]

"Geithner has been released but is accompanied at all times by an armed deputy to make sure he does not leave the country."

On February 24th Geithner was giving interviews, one too Bloomberg and another to CNBC's "Closing Bell". At about 1600 he was in Washington DC giving one of the interviews. The next day he departed for a trip to Mexico.


Shouldn't the "armed deputy" have done something about this?

[Craig4]

What if he was released on the morning of February 24th? Then he would still have been able to meet Bloomberg and CNBC etc.

This comment wasn't for you. It was intended to highlight the quality of work to others.

Besides, on the 23rd he gave an interview to Reuters in Washington.

[Craig4]

Shouldn't the "armed deputy" have done something about this?

I believe his own security detail might have something to say about an armed deputy attempting to interfere with the execution of the duties of the Secretary of the Treasury.

[Anders Lindman]

Shouldn't the "armed deputy" have done something about this?

Ouch! Yes, definitely if what Fulford wrote is correct. But is there really any evidence that Geithner really went to Mexico? I couldn't find any news about it when doing a quick search, only something about a scheduled meeting:

"G-20: Mexico's Calderon To Meet With Geithner, IMF Chief -Source" -- http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120225-701118.html

Did he really go to the meeting?

[Anders Lindman]

... on the 23rd he gave an interview to Reuters in Washington.

He could have been arrested on the morning the 24th and released the same morning (or evening)!

[Craig4]

He could have been arrested on the morning the 24th and released the same morning (or evening)!

If you have evidence he was arrested please feel free to present it.

[SpitfireIX]

It's David Icke's lizards again. ;)


That would have earned five laughing dogs.

[Mojo]

Ouch! Yes, definitely if what Fulford wrote is correct. But is there really any evidence that Geithner really went to Mexico? I couldn't find any news about it when doing a quick search, only something about a scheduled meeting:

"G-20: Mexico's Calderon To Meet With Geithner, IMF Chief -Source" -- http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120225-701118.html

Did he really go to the meeting?


Here's the first hit I got on a Google News search for the words "Timothy", "Geithner", and "Mexico": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9106286/Timothy-Geithner-Europe-must-put-in-place-stronger-and-more-credible-firewall.html

Note the photo caption:

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks during a G20 finance ministers and central bankers meeting in Mexico City on Saturday.

[Anders Lindman]

Here's the first hit I got on a Google News search for the words "Timothy", "Geithner", and "Mexico": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9106286/Timothy-Geithner-Europe-must-put-in-place-stronger-and-more-credible-firewall.html

Note the photo caption:

That debunks Fulford's claim. Someone must be feeding him false info, unless he just made that up. In either case it doesn't add to his credibility I admit. Still, that doesn't invalidate all his info although in this case it certainly was a false claim about Geithner not being allowed to leave the country.

[Tomtomkent]

Whuh? "Doesn't invalidate"? Despite being shown to be false?


Oh, and there is no "unless". Claims are assumed to be false until substantiated. So sure he made up, until evidence of being "fed false information" is supplied.


If you had bothered to take a few seconds to fact check before posting you would have known this was baloney. But that would have meant reading a "mainstream" source. Oh no!

[Anders Lindman]

Whuh? "Doesn't invalidate"? Despite being shown to be false?


It only invalidates Fulford's claim that Geithner isn't allowed to leave the country. Sure, it makes the claim that Geithner was arrested hard to believe. What I mean is that it doesn't automatically invalidate all the other information Fulford has published. For example the claim that a huge lawsuit would be filed (the Dragon Family lawsuit) turned out true in the end.

[HawksFan]

This is just...sad.

It must be hell living in your head, Anders.

[twinstead]

This is just...sad.

It must be hell living in your head, Anders.

I'd suggest the opposite--you know, ignorance is bliss and all that.

[Anders Lindman]

This is just...sad.

It must be hell living in your head, Anders.

Fulford gets information from several sources. Y'all risk tossing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!!! :D

[Tomtomkent]

Fulford gets information from several sources. Y'all risk tossing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!!! :D

Not unless he ever bothers to validate his "information" with evidence.

I take it the term "burden of evidence" is not something you care about? Unless he validates his arguments we have no reason to care. There is no need for us to invalidate unsubstantiated claims.

If you dont want the baby thrown out, show it exists. But why do we need a bath of stagnating water left alone in fear there MAY have been baby?

[SpitfireIX]

I'd suggest the opposite--you know, ignorance is bliss and all that.


+1

PhantomWolf has a quotation from Jay in his sig:

"It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality." :D

[Mojo]

That debunks Fulford's claim.


It also suggests that you hadn't searched very well.

[Mojo]

+1

PhantomWolf has a quotation from Jay in his sig:

"It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality." :D


See also: In praise of the data-free discussion. Towards a new paradigm (http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=13#ernst)

[JayUtah]

Fulford gets information from several sources. Y'all risk tossing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!!! :D

What baby? It's all bathwater until you prove otherwise.

[Biscuit]

Hey Anders! Want to get back on topic?

questions regarding your OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8054781#post8054781)

[Anders Lindman]

It also suggests that you hadn't searched very well.

Yes, I was in a hurry when I did the search. I only looked at the Google News search results on the first page and there were no obvious news about that. Later I did a more thorough search I found several images with Geithner in Mexico. This shows with basically certainty that Fulford was wrong about that.

[Anders Lindman]

What baby? It's all bathwater until you prove otherwise.

The potential baby in some of Fulford's information.

[Anders Lindman]

Hey Anders! Want to get back on topic?

questions regarding your OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8054781#post8054781)

The possibility of Geithner being arrested under the Patriot act is on topic.

[Anders Lindman]

See also: In praise of the data-free discussion. Towards a new paradigm (http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=13#ernst)

Exactly. That's why it would be good to have data about how many U.S. citizens that have been arrested under the Patriot act. But I guess that's secret information needed to be kept hidden from Al CIAda members within the borders of the Fatherland ..... eh, excuse me, the Homeland. :rolleyes:

[JayUtah]

The potential baby in some of Fulford's information.

Translation: I have no proof, just the desire to believe.

[Garrison]

Fulford gets information from several sources. Y'all risk tossing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!!! :D

The problem here isn't Fulford; it's you once again latching onto a piece of conspiracy nonsense that you could have proven false in 5 minutes if you had bothered to check it; which as so often before you failed to do.

[Anders Lindman]

The problem here isn't Fulford; it's you once again latching onto a piece of conspiracy nonsense that you could have proven false in 5 minutes if you had bothered to check it; which as so often before you failed to do.

Ok, this time I should have checked Fulford's claim, BUT I missed the part about Mexico and only searched for Garthner being arrested initially and found nothing. Not finding any mainstream info about any arrest is not itself a debunking of Fulford's claim.

[JayUtah]

Ok, this time I should have checked Fulford's claim...

And at all other times. Your continued faith in sources you know to be unreliable reveal you to be closed-minded.

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, this time I should have checked Fulford's claim, BUT I missed the part about Mexico and only searched for Garthner being arrested initially and found nothing. Not finding any mainstream info about any arrest is not itself a debunking of Fulford's claim.

No, but again that is the wrong way around. It is the burden of the one making the claim to prove it. Not others to debunk it.

Not finiding evidence that can be varified, regardless of if you consider that "mainstream" means his claims are unfounded.

People who use this forum have been incredibly patient to explain this over and again. Yet you insist others have to debunk claims? No. You have to prove them if you want to discuss them. If you don't want to make the effort to substantiate them, don't waste other peoples time with them.

This is a critical thinkers forum. Expect people to be critical. Don't make excuses when you fail to withstand scrutiny.

[Anders Lindman]

Not finiding evidence that can be varified, regardless of if you consider that "mainstream" means his claims are unfounded.

In this case the fact that I didn't find any mainstream information about any arrest made me connect Fulford's story to the Patriot act!

[Tomtomkent]

In this case the fact that I didn't find any mainstream information about any arrest made me connect Fulford's story to the Patriot act!

And what did the evidence directly contradicting hime make you connect the story to?

And why would a lackof evidence connect it to anything?

Do you know what confirmation bias is? You assumed the story was true and saw a LACK of evidence as validation?

[Dancing David]

I will mostly focus on the Patriot act in this thread.

Epic fail.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Epic fail.


I wonder if that was a small lie or a big lie on Anders' part...

[Anders Lindman]

And what did the evidence directly contradicting hime make you connect the story to?

And why would a lackof evidence connect it to anything?

Do you know what confirmation bias is? You assumed the story was true and saw a LACK of evidence as validation?

But I only found out about the contradicting evidence (I overlooked the Mexico part) after I had posted his story!

[Mojo]

Yes, I was in a hurry when I did the search. I only looked at the Google News search results on the first page and there were no obvious news about that.


The very first hit on a Google news search for the words "Timothy", "Geithner", and "Mexico" was a news story about his visit to Mexico. So were several others on the first page of results. Even just looking at the first page of results would have given you several accounts of him visiting Mexico.

[Mojo]

In this case the fact that I didn't find any mainstream information about any arrest made me connect Fulford's story to the Patriot act!


What if there had been no mention anywhere about any arrest?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What if there had been no mention anywhere about any arrest?


Indeed. There's currently nothing in the mainstream news about my arrest this morning. There's no news about hundreds of millions of Americans, including celebrities and politicians, being arrested at the same time, either. It must be the USA PATRIOT Act. I mean, what other explanation is there? That none of that actually happened? Psh!

[NoahFence]

Has this absurd thread won any kind of trolling award?

[Tomtomkent]

Has this absurd thread won any kind of trolling award?

Yes! And I know it's true as it wasnt in the mainstream press.
It has won:

Best Trolling in a legal role at the oscars.
Best on screen trousers at the MTV movie awards.
The Face-Palm achievement award for Evidence Quality.
The Shill Oil award for changing your mind between posts (but pretending opposing views are the same untill called on it).
And later mom will pin this to fridge with a "well done" magnet.


All of which is about as well researched as anything Anders asserted so far.

[Craig4]

That debunks Fulford's claim. Someone must be feeding him false info, unless he just made that up. In either case it doesn't add to his credibility I admit. Still, that doesn't invalidate all his info although in this case it certainly was a false claim about Geithner not being allowed to leave the country.

Or he's a lying sack of **** who gets his rocks off leading the gullible around by the nose. He could also be just another charismatic loon.

[Craig4]

But I only found out about the contradicting evidence (I overlooked the Mexico part) after I had posted his story!

You know, he was there for a summit of the G-20. The news about it wasn't exactly buried. The event was covered (to include Geithner's speech) extensively. Sloppy.

[sts60]

Has this absurd thread won any kind of trolling award?
Well, it's got stiff competition from the "Lost Bird" thread started by the other resident troll. But AL at least keeps his troll-posts short, so he's a more efficient troller. (Why anyone keeps feeding either troll is beyond me, but it's your time.)

The "Hyperdimensional Design" thread, by contrast, is very long indeed; but although I checked out of it long ago, at least Dutch believes what he says.