If it's necessary for your dogma, you'll believe it whether its true or not. It doesn't matter what parts of it are true, and what parts of it are not true. In fact, it's been shown that people are quite willing to believe contradictory things in order to maintain the belief. In this instance the belief is that the operators at the NSA are evil, spying on Americans, and using that information for nefarious purposes. For example I'm willing to bet that you believe that the NSA threatens carriers in order to gain access to data so they can scan all communication in real time AND that the NSA can scan all communication in real time without carrier approved access to the carrier's signal.
Fang nailed it. People will believe what they'd like, but I work in this field. I know what is rational and what isn't. For the record, the government isn't light years ahead of what the current economy has available. Yes, there are "super computers", but no, they can't do everything single thing that you guys think they can. As I've said, more than once, the government doesn't have infinite abilities due to technology. They are restricted by it. Just because you saw it in a Bourne movie, or a USA spy show, doesn't mean it is in option. Burn Notice\CSI\etc isn't real life.
I tend to agree with your concerning the NSA's "actual" capabilities, but I am concerned with the apparent intent behind their actions. Take a look at the events in the UK concerning the detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner (interestingly enough with the last name of Miranda) that took place at Heathrow. As well as the destruction of some of The Guardian's computers by GCHQ "agents" (which appear to go up to #10 Downing Street as well). A complete waste of time on their part, but very troubling. Guess who they work hand in hand with? Dodgy goings on concerning the NSA and it's partners. I'm always concerned about any agency that doesn't have adequate oversight, and the NSA would fall into that category at the moment, real or imagined capabilities aside.
Even more important is the idea that while something may be possible, it also must be practical. Scanning every communication in America in order to gain useful political data is somewhat akin to filtering the entire ocean in order to find a specific pet fish. Consider this: Google's mission is similar. They have created software that indexes a massive amount of data and they sell that data to consumers. Data is how they make money. It's very important to them, but even Google realizes that it's not practical to index everything. They narrow their scans to filter out useless and irrelevant data. Google doesn't just throw this information out, they never even look at it. To do this they have created an automated system that "crawls" along links from high traffic sites out to lower traffic sites. If the links out are not a high enough rank, Google doesn't even bother to follow them. Google has been operating since 1998 and they've still only indexed a small fraction of the total amount of information that they have access to. This is not because they can't index it, it's because they have no desire to. It's not practical to take that approach. Why would you think the NSA would operate any differently?
To be honest, NAB, I am not even saying that a few shady things haven't happened. Whenever there is power there is the ability to abuse it. My whole point is, if it's happening, it's extremely limited. Saying that the government "has me and mine" on a server somewhere is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because they'd have no reason to do that. It would be a pointless waste of money. It's just...fear mongering.
Because they use the same tax payer's money that buys $800 toilet seats. It may be completely impractical to attempt it, but that probably won't stop them from throwing other people's money at it. Bloated agencies doesn't just refer to the amount of personnel they employ. - - - Updated - - - Again, I would agree with the limitations of the NSA's capabilities. I'm more concerned with the why, not the how.
That's kind of what I'm saying though. Why would they want to spy on Americans? I have no doubts accidents happen, they get some Americans information, it's bound to happen. I think that is a great question though. Why? I don't know why. They can't use any information that doesn't have a clear evidence trail, and a warrant to obtain it. If it goes to court it's the same thing as any other illegal search.
The larger a government gets, the more apt it is to circumvent it's citizen's rights. I do know it's been mentioned the NSA has potentially violated the 4th and 5th Amendment with their tactics. Using the excuse of fighting terrorism is not an acceptable reason to do such a thing imho. The terrorists seem to have won a big victory the moment the Patriot Act was in place. Thanks a lot Bin Laden.
"Linking to websites that require user registration is discouraged, but where it cannot be avoided notice should be given that that is the case." Nice headline. So?
Are you implying that you have the, "security clearance" to be privy to holy grail of technology that the government or private sector might or might not have? Are you upper echelon?
Expense is not the only thing that makes something impractical. The more information we gather, the more the important information gets lost in the noise of the unimportant information. The how is a very important thing to understand, because if you're concerned with the protection of your privacy, knowing the how can protect you regardless of the "why." After all, in our system of government the why changes with every administration that has access to the information. Believe me, I share your apprehension regarding the expansion of government authority and power. However, defense is a core function of the federal government. When that system of defense fails, especially against our current threat sources, it's typically due to a failure in our ability to gather and analyze intelligence. This doesn't indicate that we're collecting everything. On the contrary, it indicates that we're not collecting the right stuff, and we're not figuring out what it means in time to stop a threat.
Typical truther logic. If you don't have access to information to prove your fantasy true it must be because that information exists and it's being kept from you. Patriot, do you have to be upper echelon (whatever the fudge that means) for your argument to be true?
Why is security clearance in scare quotes? LoL. It's a real thing, it's not fictional. There actually is such a thing as security clearance, and people do have to achieve it. Anyway, I don't have any security clearance in regards to the military. However, I work in the private sector, and I know that there isn't a business in the world that makes money off of having outdated technology. The private sector doesn't hide awesome (*)(*)(*)(*) they've invented from the general public, because there's no money in that. The private sector also employs some of the brightest minds available. This isn't a movie, the gubmint doesn't come snatch up smart people and take them to area 51. I guess that all boils down to who you're comparing me too cupcake. In comparison to some, I'm the highest of echelons....
What's your access to information? You want me to believe the things you say, don't you? You have no better access to information than I do to make informed decisions about what's possible and what's not. You go with your gut and I'll go with mine. There are many oddities about 9/11 that have been raised by credible people and the government's answers are just illogical. It's not unpatriotic to ask questions about things that don't make sense, don't add up or seem out right impossible. You down play the credibility of the people pushing for an independent investigation? Why? To me, they obviously have more than enough experience in their respective fields, more so than you and I, to raise these questions to the government and the general public. Yet, you imply they are unemployed kooks with a screw loose. For myself, I don't need a degree in structural engineering to even understand the gist of their argument. High rise buildings just don't free fall straight down into their foot prints because of office fires as is the claim with WTC7. No high rise as ever fallen because of fire and there have been high rise building fires that were certainly more intense than was seen in any WTC buildings that day. I've seen controlled demolition done on television before and was even present at one years ago (from a distance). What happened on 9/11 looks identical to what I've seen done before. The fact that you can clearly see molten steel pouring from the corner of WTC1 just minutes before it collapses is a serious red flag. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. It doesn't! Most of the fuel was evaporated in the initial explosion and what was left didn't burn at it's optimum temp anyway, there was too much smoke. It was oxygen deprived. Steel doesn't start to melt until 2750 degrees (F). The workers at Ground Zero found molten still two months after the clean up began. Fire can't burn without oxygen in a tightly compacted rubble pile and yet there's still molten steel months afterwards. It doesn't add up. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.co...ts-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots Question more!
This is appeal to authority fallacy. It's a strange version, in that you're appealing to your own authority to know things about information you don't have access to. How odd. The statements anyone makes are always independently verifiable. While it's nice to have authoritative opinion, evidence of truth is typically not locked in an individual's head. And now, in typical truther fashion the topic of your post spreads out the discussion into myriad red herring strands of strange and awkward claims. Who claimed WTC7 free fell straight down into its own footprint because of office fires? Isn't it possible that your lack of understanding of structural engineering lead you to believe that was a claim, when in fact that claim was never made? WTC7 did not accelerate at the rate of gravity WTC7 debris was not contained within the footprint of the building. WTC7 Was not just damaged by office fires. All of these well documented facts obviate the premise that the claim as you made it was made by anyone in any report on the subject. Gravity acts perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Buildings only fall in directions other than straight down when they are acted on by forces that are applied in vectors other than perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. These rotational forces are measured as moments. You do need to have an understanding of structural mechanics to understand this. How many structurally deficient building collapses have you attended? The fact that you think you can positively identify an alloy by looking at a video is a serious red flag. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.co...ts-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust More false premises and misunderstood science. Thermite is not explosive. The material described by Steven Jones was not found to be explosive. Beyond that, their work was independently reviewed and found to be incorrect. The samples identified as super energetic nano thermite were in fact found to be paint chips.
Steve E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, BYU http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread950989/pg1 http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/440-1000-words.html There are multiple sites where you can find this claim, that the bldg. fell into it's own footprint. Watching the video is all you need to do and see with your own eyes. It fell straight down in about 7 seconds. Of course it spread out some at the bottom. You can only put so much rubble on top of rubble before it has to spread out. That hardly means it didn't free fall, you can see it with your own eyes. Common sense like I said. Get some. Building 3, 4, 5, and 6 all suffered heavy structural and fire damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 yet much of those buildings remained standing compared to Building 7 which suffered a complete collapse. NIST's final report concluded that the collapse was solely due to fire. http://pupaganda.com/originals/Wtc_7.html Thermite can be engineered to be an explosive. Also, the rate at which it burns can be engineered too. Plus, other more conventional explosives may very well have been used in conjunction with nanothermites. http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-...-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction I attended one controlled demolition and the building wasn't structurally deficient. It was just out dated. I never said anything about alloys???? Don't know what you mean. Links I posted talked about the workers at ground zero clearing STEEL beams and GIRDERS that would pour molten steel once removed from the rubble. Many reports of molten STEEL running under all three buildings months afterwards. READ before you diss! - - - Updated - - - Steve E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, BYU http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread950989/pg1 http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/440-1000-words.html There are multiple sites where you can find this claim, that the bldg. fell into it's own footprint. Watching the video is all you need to do and see with your own eyes. It fell straight down in about 7 seconds. Of course it spread out some at the bottom. You can only put so much rubble on top of rubble before it has to spread out. That hardly means it didn't free fall, you can see it with your own eyes. Common sense like I said. Get some. Building 3, 4, 5, and 6 all suffered heavy structural and fire damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 yet much of those buildings remained standing compared to Building 7 which suffered a complete collapse. NIST's final report concluded that the collapse was solely due to fire. http://pupaganda.com/originals/Wtc_7.html Thermite can be engineered to be an explosive. Also, the rate at which it burns can be engineered too. Plus, other more conventional explosives may very well have been used in conjunction with nanothermites. http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction I attended one controlled demolition and the building wasn't structurally deficient. It was just out dated. I never said anything about alloys???? Don't know what you mean. Links I posted talked about the workers at ground zero clearing STEEL beams and GIRDERS that would pour molten steel once removed from the rubble. Many reports of molten STEEL running under all three buildings months afterwards. READ before you diss! - - - Updated - - - Steve E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, BYU http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread950989/pg1 http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/440-1000-words.html There are multiple sites where you can find this claim, that the bldg. fell into it's own footprint. Watching the video is all you need to do and see with your own eyes. It fell straight down in about 7 seconds. Of course it spread out some at the bottom. You can only put so much rubble on top of rubble before it has to spread out. That hardly means it didn't free fall, you can see it with your own eyes. Common sense like I said. Get some. Building 3, 4, 5, and 6 all suffered heavy structural and fire damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 yet much of those buildings remained standing compared to Building 7 which suffered a complete collapse. NIST's final report concluded that the collapse was solely due to fire. http://pupaganda.com/originals/Wtc_7.html Thermite can be engineered to be an explosive. Also, the rate at which it burns can be engineered too. Plus, other more conventional explosives may very well have been used in conjunction with nanothermites. http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction I attended one controlled demolition and the building wasn't structurally deficient. It was just out dated. I never said anything about alloys???? Don't know what you mean. Links I posted talked about the workers at ground zero clearing STEEL beams and GIRDERS that would pour molten steel once removed from the rubble. Many reports of molten STEEL running under all three buildings months afterwards. READ before you diss!
It not what information you or I have access too, it's what it the correct information. I do have access to information you don't, because I accept information from sources you refuse too. That's completely your call, no matter what I may say about it. It's not unpatriotic to ask questions, but ignoring the correct answers, and just seeking out the ones that confirm your biasness is just ridiculous. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea what my educational background is or how I might utilize it in relation to 9/11. So saying that you and I are on the same level is just another one of your "beliefs", isn't it? I do downplay the credibility of people pushing for a new investigation, because most of them don't have the credentials to appeal the NIST report or other information confirming the events of that day. David Ray is a theology profession, has absolutely no experience in regards to any field in 9/11. Dick Gage is an unemployed architect with absolutely extremely minimal knowledge in regards to 9/11. He showed that by using boxes to illustrate the WTC. Steven Jones worked with water. Again, no experience in regards to 9/11 I downplay their credibility because they shouldn't have any in the first place. They are. As Fang said, maybe you don't need a degree, but it might not hurt. Also, no one in the NIST report, or any other report I've read, claimed that it fell in it's own footprint. That is a strawman. There might be more buildings with hotter fires, but I doubt they have the same makeup as any of the WTC. Find me one exactly the same and I'll admit I'm wrong. Good, now that it looks like it, what does it sound like? Because it certainly doesn't sound like one, and the seismic recorders around town didn't pick up any explosions. Your using 1 sense to try and rule out a ton of other aspects. There was no melted steel. The fireballs started the contents of the building on fire. Fireballs flew down the elevators, to dismiss the fuel as a non-factor is a severe problem. You are mistaken, and the fuel wasn't oxygen deprived? How could it be? People trapped on the floors were breaking windows, there were holes in the side of the building from the impact damage, and there was a breeze blowing. You're wrong. And thermite doesn't burn over the course of months either. The Ground Zero workers have been misquoted as saying it was steel. There is also no evidence of molten steel, but there were molten metals. You are wrong in regards to the fire, it basically created a huge furnace. They didn't find explosives, as Fang said, they found paint. It's been proven, independently, like you asked for.
Sure. They are all truther sites trying to fabricate straw man to batter. Your statement implied that a legitimate report made this claim or came to this conclusion. That is what I was disputing. No video of WTC7 I have seen looks like a controlled demolition. All the videos I have seen look like a building collapse after being struck and damaged by falling debris. In fact, in many of the videos I have seen I can see evidence displayed on the outside of the building of the structural failures from within the building that took place prior to global collapse. No. It did not fall straight down in 7 seconds. The entire collapse took almost 15 seconds. Two different outcomes are not entirely unexpected when comparing the behavior of two different buildings subject to two different environment variables. Is that common sense too? The oxidation of aluminum is not an explosive reaction. Explosions require rapid expansion, something that the oxidation of aluminum does not do. Chemistry is chemistry. You cannot change its laws to support your fiction. So why do you think you would recognize the behavior of a building that is structurally deficient? You admit you don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't stop you from having an opinion. I suggest you educate yourself before you form your conclusions. Steel is an alloy. You claimed to be able to identify steel in a video. If you took a moment, you might not have made such a foolish comment. Let's take a little test of your claim, shall we? Which one is steel? Even better, can you tell me what temperature those metals are?
So? No one has denied that during the process of collecting intelligence that there hasn't been some US collection as well. In fact, the NSA has confirmed as much. Point?
Thousands of emails captured in packet transmissions over the course of three years? Windows live hotmail processes 3 BILLION emails a DAY. And of course they are just one of hundreds of SMTP providers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6d2646-ade9-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html There goes the talking points of the N.S.A. defenders that have repeatedly claimed such non-sense as "the N.S.A. doesn't have the capacity or capability to record every telephone conversation in a country."
They monitor you if you are Cindy Sheehan or Edward Snowden's cousin. Even if you are a major OWS organizer. They definitely listen to congressmen, major newspaper reporters, so says Daniel Ellsberg. I'm sure they listen to him too, being Bradley Manning's buddy and all. As for the rest of us, they digitize the conversations, and can pull them up at anytime, by keyword. In case some bank accountant decides to go public, you want to know who he's cheating on his wife with, and show him a few pictures.
