Date: Fri Dec 30 04:22:08 2005
From: measl at mfn.org (J.A. Terranson)
Subject: [COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC NOW] RE: complaints about
	the governemnt spying!


On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Pete Simpson wrote:

> Some facts and logic may prove useful.

Agreed: we're still waiting for some...


> Why do you think that the US government would wish to spy on its own
> citizens?

Because it is currently inhabited by a fascist neocon.

> Ah-ah - Islamo-terrorist sleeper cells have infiltrated the US
> for possibly a decade. First examine the terrorist angle and then return
> to the necessity for internal spying.

This "argument" assumes facts not in evidence: i.e., "the necessity for
internal spying".

> Nineteeen Islamo-terrorists changed the world irrevocably in September
> 2001.

I am SO fucking tired of hearing about this 100% Pure American Bullshit
"changed world" I could scream.  The only thing that has really changed is
that we have gone like sheep to the Bush slaughter (of our own liberties).

The sky is still blue.  My kids are still playing in their yard.  the
government still NEEDS A WARRANT to perform surveillance (even though Bush
refuses to follow the fucking law).  the only substantive "change" has
been in the extension of postulated limits on executive authority. Whether
there really has been a change in *that* remains to be seen (if the SCOTUS
ever gets it's shit together and bitch slaps Bush).

> All 19 wrere identified with photographs and several aliases
> within 48 hours, yet none were included in the UA or AA passenger lists
> for those flights. Brilliant detection, but by whom? (that's another
> story). Colin Powell promised a full report, within a few months, on why
> they were the culprits. That report never emerged. In July 2002 Robert
> Mueller (Director of the FBI) admitted (nine of of the 'hijackers' were
> still alive and well according to the UK BBC) that given that they all
> had stolen identities, the real perpetrators would never be known. Think
> about that one and check out the FBI website, which never retracted the
> clearly false accusations. Was there any mention of that in the Kean
> Report? No, the guilt of the nineteen accused individuals was a given.

Lots of useless stuff here, none of which adds up to much more than the
Usual Government Incompetence.  Occam's Razor - try it.

> But the real crunch comes when Augian politics defies physics. Sir Issac
> Newton, long dead, must be laughing hysterically in his grave over this
> 9/11 stunt.
>
> Newton proved that the time for an object to fall from a given height,
> in a vacuum (without air resistance) is the square root of twice the
> height divided by a constant (acceleration due to gravity). Brilliant
> deduction. WTC 1 and 2 were 415 and 417 metres high. The constant for
> the acceleration due to gravity is 9.62 m/s/s. The time for an object to
> fall under those conditions (in vacuo) is 9.2s. Now allowing for air
> resistance one can believe a few seconds more,

Right up to this point, you are on solid ground - then you choose to take
a flying leap, at your coveted 9.62 m/s/s no doubt, into pure bullshit.

> but allowing for a
> quarter of a million tonnes of steel and concrete it is utterly
> impossible for the twin towers to descend in ten to eleven seceonds.

Objection: Arguing facts not in evidence: "Utterly Impossible"?  Proof?
"Ten or eleven seconds"?  Just how long WAS it?  I watched it happen and I
didn't stop-watch it, did you?  Do you have an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE for
this "ten or eleven seconds"?

> Unless the fall was unimpeded i.e. a controlled demolition. Ask your
> physicists to refute this argument.

Make an argument that is grounded in science, and i will get you an
appropriate scientist to refute it.  until then, nobody can fight fantasy.

> But get this one. WTC7 collapsed at about 5.30 that day (again on its
> own footprint) without being 'attacked'?

Objection: Misdirection on two points, namely, the implied argument that
WTC7 fell in the absence of significant damages, and secondly, that
falling on it's own footprint is either unusual or indicative of some
unusual process WRT said collapse.

I can refute both points, and you know it (7 sustained very significant
damages early on, as was heavily documented early on, and, falling on a
footprint is EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR for a plumb building.


> But if you really have a good sense of humour, ask the guys in the
> Physics Dept. how come no black box flight recorders were found
> (designed to withstand terrific temperatures and pressures) yet a
> terrorist's passport was miraculously discovered with just minor burns?

Objection: Arguing two points that are unrelated.

The passport (if it really was found) *is* a highly unusual find, although
I can certainly envision theoretical avenues for it to survive.  The black
box is a whole different animal: that box was consumed in a collapse that
generated millions of degrees of heat during the compression (collapse)
phase.


> Now why on Earth should the US government wish to carry out surveilance
> on its own citizens? Maybe some are not comatose?

See above: already addressed.

> Best regards,
>
> Pete
>

Pointless.  Just fucking pointless.  Don't you conspiracy nuts even go to
school before postulating this tripe?

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF


'The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of
the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction.'

St. George Tucker

Powered by blists - more mailing lists