SternFanNetwork Archive - Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened.

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
is that the leap you made from reading this? that the President can create a police state at will?

unless you didn't read it and someone fed you their interpretation of it....

I like this part:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

That quote there is a violation of the Constitution, because, there are no acts to seek approval by congress as guaranteed by our forefathers and from an Ayn Randian conservative/libertarian, promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, violates the separation of powers as well as well as the soveirgnty of a state by r3emoving federalism from the equation. For example, the DEA cannot come into California and raid medical marijuana facilities unless the states asks the feds to step in and deportation of illegals vary from state to state, so if the south don't want some illegals to be in the area, the governor can request the ICE to come into the state and remove all their illegals. The feds can't, because they don't have peace officer powers to make arrests in the state. It's called posse comitatus and it doesn't just apply to the military. This little caveat was placed in the Constitution so that's why there are federally funded state and local law enforcement agencies.

So by allowing the government to function witout the approval of the governor, violates the Constitution, it violates posse comitatus oh and remember when Katrina happened? The governor of Louisiana fucked up by not ordering a state of emergency thus allowing the feds to help rebuild after the hurricane season. So Bush or maybe the next president NOW can promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments... Now imagine another attack? This would mean that the local law enforcement agencies will become federalize, they could come in and make arrests without probable cause. It was also guaranteed by the Patrot Act:

Quote: SNEAK AND PEEK SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE USA PATRIOT ACT 1

ublished in The Georgia Defender, p. 1 (September 2002).

Sneak and Peek Search Warrants Before the USA Patriot Act

A sneak and peek search warrant (also called a covert entry search warrant or a surreptitious entry search warrant) is a search warrant authorizing the law enforcement officers executing it to effect physical entry into private premises without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premises; usually, such entry requires a stealthy breaking and entering.2

Although neither federal statutory law nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which governs federal search warrants) expressly authorized sneak and peek search warrants, and although the notice requirement of Rule 41 (under which officers serving a search warrant are required to deliver to the occupants, or leave on the premises, a copy of the warrant and a receipt for articles seized) seemingly prohibited sneak and peek warrants, in the 1980's “the FBI and the DEA ... embarked upon a widespread series of [court-authorized] covert entries in a variety of criminal investigations,”3 and by the end of 1984 had persuaded federal judges and federal magistrates to issue at least 35 sneak and peek warrants.4 There are five reported federal appellate decisions, three in the Ninth Circuit and two in the Second Circuit, involving the validity of searches undertaken pursuant to various sneak and peek warrants issued in the 1980's.5

The factual scenarios underlying those five appellate cases, decided between 1986 and 1993, permit us to understand the realities of search practices under sneak and peek warrants. Under those warrants the search occurred only when the occupants were absent from the premises. The entry and the search were conducted in such a way as to keep them secret. The warrants prohibited seizures of anything except intangible evidence, i.e., information concerning what had been going on, or now was located, inside the premises. No tangible evidence was seized. The searching officers usually took photographs inside the premises searched. No copy of the warrant or receipt was left on the premises. The time for giving notice of the covert entry might be postponed by the court one or more times. The same premises might be subjected to repeated covert entries under successive warrants. At the end of the criminal investigation the premises previously searched under a sneak and peek warrant were usually searched under a conventional search warrant and tangible evidence was then seized. Generally, it was not until after the police made an arrest or returned with a conventional search warrant that the existence of any covert entries was disclosed. Sometimes this was weeks or even months after the surreptitious search or searches.

Neither the Second nor the Ninth Circuit held inadmissible the evidence obtained under the sneak and peek warrants at issue. The Second Circuit held that sneak and peek warrants did not violate the 4th Amendment,6 that Rule 41 did not bar issuance of sneak and peek warrants,7 and that to the extent there had been a violation of the notice requirement of Rule 41 the evidence was nonetheless admissible under the established legal principle that violations of Rule 41 ordinarily do not authorize suppression.8 The Ninth Circuit held that the warrants violated both the 4th Amendment and the notice requirement of Rule 41, but that nonetheless the evidence obtained was, insofar as the 4th Amendment was concerned, admissible under the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, and, insofar as Rule 41 was concerned, admissible because the Rule 41 violation was not fundamental.9 Judging from pre-1993 caselaw, the approach taken by the Second Circuit as to the basic validity of sneak and peek warrants under the 4th Amendment and Rule 41 appears to have been more legally sound than that of the Ninth Circuit.10

The USA Patriot Act’s Authorization of Sneak and Peek Warrants

Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act,11 enacted on Oct. 26, 2001, contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of sneak and peek search warrants in American history. Section 213 is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. Section 213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the Act’s sunset provisions.12 To the extent Section 213 may conflict with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.13

Section 213 amends 18 U. S. C. § 3103a, relating to warrants for the search and seizure of evidence of federal crimes, by adding the following: “With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if ... (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.”14

Under 18 U. S. C. § 3103a(b), three requirements must be met before a federal court may issue a sneak and peek search warrant for evidence of a federal crime.

First, the court must find “reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705).” 18 U. S. C. § 2705(a)(2) defines “adverse result” to be (1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual, (2) flight from prosecution, (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence, (4) intimidation of potential witnesses, or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

Second, the warrant must prohibit “the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure ...” Whereas the sneak and peek warrants litigated in the Second and Ninth Circuits between 1986 and 1993 were specifically limited to intangible evidence, 18 U.S. C. § 3103a(b) authorizes sneak and peek warrants for the seizure not only of intangibles, but also of tangibles, provided the court finds “reasonable necessity” for the seizure of the tangibles. Presumably, if tangible evidence is seized under a sneak and peek warrant the seizure will be carried out clandestinely; for example, a seized physical object might be replaced with another object that appears to be the original item.

Third, the warrant must provide for the giving of notice of execution of the warrant “within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.”

It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte, that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized, boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. Take, for example, the “adverse result” requirement. The statutory definition of adverse result is so all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine many criminal investigations where at least one form of such a result is not going to be arguably applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the requirement the court need not have reasonable cause to believe that there will be an adverse result, only that there “may” be an adverse result. The second requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizure of tangible property, is drained of significance by the gigantic exception allowing seizure of such property “where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure.” It will be a rare case indeed where such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by the issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will become the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak and peek warrants. The final requirement, that the warrant provide for the giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves merely a question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and the provision permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the period (one or more times) “for good cause shown,” a standard easily met, makes it likely that such extensions will become routine and pro forma.

It is also noteworthy that 18 U. S. C. § 3103a contains no statutory exclusionary rule enforcing these three restrictions on the issuance of sneak and peek warrants. Therefore, in the event a sneak and peek warrant is issued in contravention of §3103a the evidence obtained thereby will nonetheless be admissible under the usual rule that evidence acquired in violation of statutory protections is admissible unless the statute includes an exclusionary rule. Even where the sneak and peek warrant for some reason violates the 4th Amendment the evidence nonetheless will probably be admissible under the “good faith” doctrine.

Conclusion

Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act not only specifically grants the federal judiciary power to issue sneak and peek warrants, but also, by allowing their use for every federal crime and by placing no meaningful limits on their issuance, encourages their issuance. It may be expected that as time passes the use of such warrants will become the rule rather than the exception in federal court, and that when a conventional search warrant is issued it will almost always have been preceded by a sneak and peek warrant.

Decisional law makes it extremely unlikely that the federal courts will hold that Section 213’s authorization of sneak and peek warrants violates the 4th Amendment.15

Although Section 213 applies to federal search warrants, it is only a question of time before states begin enacting legislation authorizing state judges to issue sneak and peek warrants.

Nearly two decades ago a prescient federal judge, in a dissenting opinion, warned that sneak and peek search warrants “constitute ... a dangerous and radical threat to civil rights and to the security of all our homes and persons.”16 Echoing this sentiment, a law review note published three years later emphasized that sneak and peek search warrants “bestow on law enforcement agents unlimited license to rifle through a person’s private residence without the owner’s knowledge or consent. There is no check on agents’ actions to ensure they comply”17 with protections for individual rights, and “the risk of abuse and the subsequent intrusion into privacy is ... severe.”18

Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act ushers in a new regime in America, a regime where the police learn at the police academy how to clandestinely burglarize the residences and offices of Americans and where the potential for police abuse is limitless. From now on Americans will be forced to live in “Orwellian fear that government agents may intrude at any time.”19

FOOTNOTES

1. This article focuses on covert entries and surreptitious searches and seizures pursuant to sneak and peek search warrants issued by federal courts prior to, or under the authority of, the USA Patriot Act.
There is insufficient space in this article for a comprehensive examination of court-authorized covert entries to install and maintain hidden listening devices under the Federal Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq.; see Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238 (1979); see also McNamara, The Problem of Surreptitious Entry to Effectuate Electronic Eavesdrops: How Do You Proceed After the Court Says “Yes”?, 15 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1 (1977); Note, Covert Entry in Electronic Surveillance: The Fourth Amendment Requirements, 47 Fordham L. Rev. 203 (1978); Comment, The Problem of Surreptitious Entry to Implement a Title III Intercept Order: An Argument in Favor of Express Judicial Authorization, 70 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 510 (1979).
There is also insufficient space in this article to examine court-authorized covert entries to conduct surreptitious electronic visual surveillance for purposes of criminal investigation prior to the USA Patriot Act, except to the extent the caselaw allowing such entries and surveillance throws light on the issue of the validity of sneak and peek search warrants; see, e.g., United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F. 2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mesa-Rincon, 911 F. 2d 1433 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Biasucci, 786 F. 2d 504 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Torres, 751 F. 2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984); see also Hodges, Electronic Visual Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: The Arrival of Big Brother?, 3 Hastings Const. L. Q. 261 (1976); Note, Electronic Visual Surveillance and the Right of Privacy: When Is Electronic Observation Reasonable?, 35 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1043 (1978).
Covert entries to gather domestic national security information are also beyond the scope of this article; see United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972).
Finally, covert entries to gather foreign intelligence information, whether court-authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq., or without judicial authorization but pursuant to the inherent powers of the President, are also outside the scope of this article; see United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F. 2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Brown and Cinquegrana, Warrantless Physical Searches for Foreign Intelligence Purposes: Executive Order 12,333 and the Fourth Amendment, 35 Cath. U. L. Rev. 97 (1985); Note, Executive Order No. 12,333: An Assessment of the Validity of Warrantless National Security Searches, 1983 Duke L. J. 611.
2. See generally Corr, Sneaky But Lawful: The Use of Sneak and Peek Search Warrants, 43 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1103 (1995); Note, On a Quest for a Reason: A New Look at Surreptitious Search Warrants, 48 Hastings L. J. 435 (1997); Note, Freitas After Villegas: Are “Sneak and Peek” Search Warrants Clandestine Fishing Expeditions?, 26 San Diego L. Rev. 933 (1989); Note, Covert Searches, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 545 (1987); Corr, Court-Sanctioned Stealth Searches and Seizures, 22 Search and Seizure L. Rep. 1 (Nov. 1995); Failure to Give Notice of Covert Entry Won’t Ordinarily Lead to Suppression, 52 Crim. L. Rep. 1417 (Feb. 17, 1993); “Sneak and Peek” Warrant Upheld Against Fourth Amendment Challenge, 47 Crim. L. Rep. 2046 (Apr. 18, 1990).
3. Note, Covert Searches, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 546 (1987).
4. Id. at 546-47.
5. United States v. Pangburn, 983 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1993) (warrant’s violation of notice requirement of Rule 41 did not require suppression); United States v. Villegas, 899 F. 2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) (warrant did not violate 4th Amendment or Rule 41); United States v. Freitas, 856 F. 2d 1425 (9th Cir. 1988) (warrant violated 4th Amendment and Rule 41); United States v. Johns, 851 F. 2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1988) (same); United States v. Freitas, 800 F. 2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986) (same).
It also appears from federal caselaw that on at least two occasions, the first in 1980, the second in 1990, state court judges issued sneak and peek warrants, despite the absence of state statutory authorization for such warrants. United States v. Sitton, 968 F. 2d 947 (9th Cir. 1992) (referring to sneak and peek search warrant issued by California judge to sheriff’s deputies in 1990); United States v. Inadi, 748 F. 2d 812 (3d Cir. 1985) (referring to sneak and peek search warrant issued by state magistrate in New Jersey to state police officers in 1980). See also People v. Teicher, 52 N. Y. 2d 638, 422 N. E. 2d 506, 439 N. Y. S. 2d 846 (1981) (state court authorized police to secrete video camera in dentist’s office).
6. United States v. Villegas, 899 F. 2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) (relying on Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238 (1979)).
7. United States v. Villegas, 899 F. 2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) (relying on United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159 (1977); United States v. Biasucci, 786 F. 2d 504 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Torres, 751 F. 2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Taborda, 635 F. 2d 131 (2d Cir. 1980)).
8. United States v. Pangburn, 983 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1993) (warrant’s violation of notice requirement of Rule 41 did not require suppression of evidence). See also United States v. Freitas, 800 F. 2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to comply with Rule 41 does not automatically require suppression of evidence); United States v. Vasser, 648 F. 2d 507 (9th Cir. 1980) (violation of Rule 41 does not lead to suppression unless the violation is fundamental); United States v. Radlick, 581 F. 2d 225 (9th Cir. 1978) (a violation of Rule 41 requires suppression of evidence only where agents would not have carried out the search had they been required to follow Rule 41 and where the violation was intentional and deliberate); United States v. Burke, 517 F. 2d 377 (2d Cir. 1975) (a violation of Rule 41 alone should not lead to exclusion of evidence unless the search would not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if Rule 41 had been followed, or unless there was an intentional and deliberate disregard of Rule 41).
9. See, e.g., United States v. Freitas, 856 F. 2d 1425 (9th Cir. 1988).
10. See, e.g., Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238 (1979) (4th Amendment does not per se bar court-authorized covert entries); United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159 (1977) (although Rule 41 defines seizable property to include tangible objects, it does not exhaustively enumerate all the items which may be seized pursuant to Rule 41; Rule 41 is sufficiently broad to include seizures of intangible items; the notice requirement of Rule 41 is not so inflexible as to require invariably that notice be given to the person searched prior to commencement of the search); United States v. Donovan, 429 U. S. 413 (1977) (federal statute providing that persons subjected to court-authorized electronic surveillance are to be given notice of the surveillance after it is completed satisfies 4th Amendment); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) (a conventional search warrant ordinarily serves to notify the suspect of an intended search; however, officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence; Rule 41 requires officers to serve upon the person searched a copy of the warrant and a receipt for material obtained, but it does not invariably require that this be done before the search takes place); Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 (1966) (upholding validity of court-authorized use of hidden recording device against suspect who was not notified of the electronic surveillance until after his conversations were recorded); United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F. 2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 41 authorized a federal court to issue warrants for silent video surveillance); United States v. Mesa-Rincon, 911 F. 2d 1433 (10th Cir. 1990) (Rule 41 empowered federal court to issue order authorizing Secret Service to surreptitiously enter private building to install and maintain video surveillance equipment); United States v. Biasucci, 786 F. 2d 504 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 41 empowered federal court to issue order authorizing FBI to enter business office and install hidden video camera); United States v. Torres, 751 F. 2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984) (federal court had inherent power as well as authority under Rule 41 to issue an order authorizing television surveillance of the interior of an apartment being used by terrorists as a safe house to make bombs); United States v. Taborda, 635 F. 2d 131 (2d Cir. 1980) (search warrant required for viewing of private area through telescope); Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. United States, 565 F. 2d 385 (6th Cir. 1977) (the Rule 41 definition of “property” as tangible objects is not all inclusive; Rule 41 authorizes search warrants for intangible objects).
11. USA Patriot Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, tit. 2, § 213, 115 Stat. 272, 285-86 (amending 18 U. S. C. § 3103a).
12. USA Patriot Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, tit. 2, § 224(a), 115 Stat. 272, 295.
13. As amended on Apr. 29, 2002, effective Dec. 1, 2002, Rule 41(a)(1) provides: “This rule does not modify any statute regulating search and seizure, or the issuance of a search warrant in special circumstances.”
14. 18 U. S. C. § 3103a(b).
15. See, e.g., Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238 (1979) (4th Amendment does not per se bar court-authorized covert entries); United States v. Donovan, 429 U. S. 413 (1977) (federal statute providing that persons subjected to court-authorized electronic surveillance are to be given notice of the surveillance after it is completed satisfies 4th Amendment); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) (a conventional search warrant ordinarily serves to notify the suspect of an intended search; however, officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence; Rule 41 requires officers to serve upon the person searched a copy of the warrant and a receipt for material obtained, but it does not invariably require that this be done before the search takes place); Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 (1966) (upholding validity of court-authorized use of hidden recording device against suspect who was not notified of the electronic surveillance until after his conversations were recorded); United States v. Pangburn, 983 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1993) (sneak and peek warrant’s violation of notice requirement of Rule 41 did not require suppression); United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F. 2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 41 authorized a federal court to issue warrants for silent video surveillance); United States v. Mesa-Rincon, 911 F. 2d 1433 (10th Cir. 1990) (Rule 41 empowered federal court to issue order authorizing Secret Service to surreptitiously enter private building to install and maintain video surveillance equipment); United States v. Villegas, 899 F. 2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) (sneak and peek warrant did not violate 4th Amendment or Rule 41); United States v. Biasucci, 786 F. 2d 504 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 41 empowered federal court to issue order authorizing FBI to enter business office and install hidden video camera); United States v. Torres, 751 F. 2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984) (federal court had inherent power as well as authority under Rule 41 to issue an order authorizing television surveillance of the interior of an apartment being used by terrorists as a safe house to make bombs); United States v. Taborda, 635 F. 2d 131 (2d Cir. 1980) (search warrant required for viewing of private area through telescope); Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. United States, 565 F. 2d 385 (6th Cir. 1977) (the Rule 41 definition of “property” as tangible objects is not all inclusive; Rule 41 authorizes search warrants for intangible objects).
16. United States v. Freitas, 800 F. 2d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1986) (Poole, J., dissenting).
17. Note, Freitas After Villegas: Are “Sneak and Peek” Search Warrants Clandestine Fishing Expeditions?, 26 San Diego L. Rev. 933, 946 (1989).
18. Id. at 947.
19. Note, Covert Searches, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 557 (1987).

This new law gives the power to the president to do such acts. It violates:

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)

And:

Article IV Section IV Guarantees to States
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

That's called checks and balance, this new law omits that. Now another attack? A natural disaster? Another building collapse? What a great way to implement this law and violate your civil rights. And you have no problems with that.

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
So your theory is covered both ways, how convenient.

You better believe it, tha's why I'm voting for Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul. Fuck the Democraps and the Neo-Con(victs)

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
try reading the document....this is a directive requiring that departments and agencies prepare plans for a catastrophic event so that the government can continue to function...that includes assuring that the government will retain the authority it already has...

paranoid much?

It happens when the governor of the stae declares a national emergency. Federalism prohibits the feds to step in unless asked, because your state is a sovereign state. paranoid? You bet, and i hope you realize that 9/11 was a precursor to this police state.

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Unitary executive theory sounds like a code-word for Fascist Dictatorship to me.

Imagine if Bill Clinton did this?

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
If a "terrorist" attack occurs, this directive will be implemented. Coincidentally, this fits with the neo con agenda of consolidating executive power.

That's as clear as I can make it for you.

After much thought, the DLC is as corrupt as the neo-cons. Look up the four boxes of liberty. Tell me which we're at?

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Now come on.... I'm not a brilliant theorist or anything... but this sounds a lot like Star Wars.... you know, how the Emperor(Bush) assumes total control of the Republic(America) based on an 'imminent' attack from 'rebels'(terrorists).....

I've seen this plot line before, I know it! :idea:

You know what? That's a good concept. But maybe it won't be Bush, imagine a liberal loon wielding this much power?

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
and what if a natural disaster occurs? or China decides to invade? or a giant meteor hits central Florida?

this is not a new concept to satisfy some Stickman-buzzword agenda...similar plans were in place during the Cold War in the event that the Soviets got a big head...just do some reading on "Continuity of Operations"....

the purpose of this change by Bush is simply to get the government to create their plans under the assumption that there will be no forewarning of an attack, versus the Soviet scenario where a long-range strike would be detected and there would be time to react....

you and your Truth Movement are so hung up on uncovering the secret government cabal you pounce on anything that might refer to Presidential powers...i mean it's serious paranoia bordering schizophrenia...

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

God, that's why America is in trouble. The Constitution prohibts the feds from stepping in unless the governor declares a state of Emergency. The president cannot just do what he wishes, there is a balance of power: Legislative, Executive as wel as judicial. No one department is above each other and Bush signing the act into law eliminates this checks and balance

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I don't see a single fire in any of those photos, and some of that smoke is coming from the collapsed towers.

The tower is the byproduct of the prelude to a police state. Now that Bush signed the act into law, that should be our concern.

nunpuncher

wow i better go get my tin foil hat
bush is gonna be the president for the next decade

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
It's more of a fuck up, a slip up. Word obviously got out the bldg was going to be imploded. Which is strange since bldgs don't just collapse when one floor is on fire.

word got out that the building was going to be imploded? word got out? and the BBC decided not to tell anyone that they got word about it?

are you fucking serious? all your arguing about secret agendas and cover ups and you've now decided that the mainstream media was in on it to?

that is the stupidest fucking thing you've ever said....go ahead and scream ad hominem all you want, but i never thought you'd be so desperate that you'd say something like that...

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I don't see a single fire in any of those photos, and some of that smoke is coming from the collapsed towers.

so all the smoke that you see below is blowing INTO the building?

frogball

which part of "effective response to and recovery from a national emergency" don't you get?

if a nuke is set off in DC, where would you like Congress to gather to vote on a resolution?

Quote: Originally posted by KOAJaps
I like this part:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

That quote there is a violation of the Constitution, because, there are no acts to seek approval by congress as guaranteed by our forefathers and from an Ayn Randian conservative/libertarian, promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, violates the separation of powers as well as well as the soveirgnty of a state by r3emoving federalism from the equation. For example, the DEA cannot come into California and raid medical marijuana facilities unless the states asks the feds to step in and deportation of illegals vary from state to state, so if the south don't want some illegals to be in the area, the governor can request the ICE to come into the state and remove all their illegals. The feds can't, because they don't have peace officer powers to make arrests in the state. It's called posse comitatus and it doesn't just apply to the military. This little caveat was placed in the Constitution so that's why there are federally funded state and local law enforcement agencies.

So by allowing the government to function witout the approval of the governor, violates the Constitution, it violates posse comitatus oh and remember when Katrina happened? The governor of Louisiana fucked up by not ordering a state of emergency thus allowing the feds to help rebuild after the hurricane season. So Bush or maybe the next president NOW can promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments... Now imagine another attack? This would mean that the local law enforcement agencies will become federalize, they could come in and make arrests without probable cause. It was also guaranteed by the Patrot Act:

This new law gives the power to the president to do such acts. It violates:

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)

And:

Article IV Section IV Guarantees to States
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

That's called checks and balance, this new law omits that. Now another attack? A natural disaster? Another building collapse? What a great way to implement this law and violate your civil rights. And you have no problems with that.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I don't see a single fire in any of those photos, and some of that smoke is coming from the collapsed towers.

and you've seen the video I posted before. stop lying.

Billyfromsphily

Its a bigger joke to him than us Snoop. Its all about stickman and not what happened.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules

and you've seen the video I posted before. stop lying.

One floor of fires doesn't bring down a steel bldg.

I don't care how much smoke you see.

Billyfromsphily

Gee if you were shown a lit match , you would say that it couldn't staert a forrest fire!

Looks like the pictures show more than one floor on fire.

Get over it.......... all you ever do is show that you don't know or understand that pictures are not complete proof one way or another.

OH I forgot, its all about stickman and not the facts!!

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
One floor of fires doesn't bring down a steel bldg.

I don't care how much smoke you see.

so the facts are irrelevant?

there's more than one floor on fire, and they're not consecutive, so you'd have to believe that 1) individual fires somehow started on their own on different floors OR 2) the fire traveled between all floors and you simply can't see the flames in the picture....which do you believe?

and, it would be great if you could explain how smoke is billowing out of every floor without something burning inside...or maybe how there are scorch marks on the outside of the windows on more than one floor...

Stickman

I know I'm just a stupid moron, but this does look like fire. And the steel frame still doesn't collapse.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I know I'm just a stupid moron, but this does look like fire. And the steel frame still doesn't collapse.

Yep it doesn't show the conclusion , but only a momentary portion of the event.

More of your partial explanations ,but not definitive proof!

tourette_ticker

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I know I'm just a stupid moron, but this does look like fire. And the steel frame still doesn't collapse.

Was that building also heavily damaged by falling debris or is your picture totally irrelevant?

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Was that building also heavily damaged by falling debris or is your picture totally irrelevant?

No, the idea that "falling debris" can cause a collapse is irrelevent. That's never happened before.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Was that building also heavily damaged by falling debris or is your picture totally irrelevant?

So the collapse of 2 of the largest buildings in the world is irrelevant ?

Nothing like that had ever occured before , so don't consider it applicable???

You are a fucking self deluded narcissist !

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
So the collapse of 2 of the largest buildings in the world is irrelevant ?

Nothing like that had ever occured before , so don't consider it applicable???

You are a fucking self deluded narcissist !

I always make an attempt to figure out what billy's trying to say, but then I end up saying, "fuck it" and go back to ignoring him.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I always make an attempt to figure out what billy's trying to say, but then I end up saying, "fuck it" and go back to ignoring him.

Can't ignore the truth sticky.....You don't know shit and you prove it every time you try to play expert

Now run along and play with your self !

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I know I'm just a stupid moron, but this does look like fire. And the steel frame still doesn't collapse.

ah yes, let's spit out the Windsor card...

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

"The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze."

in other words, heat weakens steel....

"The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident."

in other words, the building didn't collapse because it had a concrete core....

Halcyon

Look, I just need to know when I can expect my fucking lightsaber!

I want to go after the emperor!

tourette_ticker

I think your reply is misdirected. I was pointing out that Stick's picture was irrelevant if it didn't match the circumstances of WTC7. Which it doesn't.

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Look, I just need to know when I can expect my fucking lightsaber!

I want to go after the emperor!

don't you get it? the emperor controls all the lightsabers....what do you think was used to cut the beams in the WTC?

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
don't you get it? the emperor controls all the lightsabers....what do you think was used to cut the beams in the WTC?

Fuck that.. I'm not going down without a fight, I don't care what cut those beams.....If the emperor plans on taking over the republic, I want to be on the rebel side with a fucking lightsaber.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
I think your reply is misdirected. I was pointing out that Stick's picture was irrelevant if it didn't match the circumstances of WTC7. Which it doesn't.

Sorry T ,I was responding to his obliviousness's statement.

"The idea that falling debris can cause a collapse is irrelevant"

Stickman disregards anything that exceeds his limited capacity.

He can't explain the picture with fire on more than one level and he can't allow for the fact that fire spreads.

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Sorry T ,I was responding to his obliviousness's statement.

"The idea that falling debris can cause a collapse is irrelevant"

Stickman disregards anything that exceeds his limited capacity.

He can't explain the picture with fire on more than one level and he can't allow for the fact that fire spreads.

i'll bet you A MILLION DOLLARS that his response will have nothing to do with fire, debris or building structure.....something along the lines of "do you know who had offices in that building?"

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
i'll bet you A MILLION DOLLARS that his response will have nothing to do with fire, debris or building structure.....something along the lines of "do you know who had offices in that building?"

HOW MUCH?

Snoopyrules

You mean instead of actually answering a question, he'll just pose another question. That doesn't seem right. If he does that, I'm sure it would just be a one time event.

Billyfromsphily

So its still an

OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
So its still an

OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!

Wait, wait, I want to ask an irrelevant question as proof of a conspiracy first.

Do you know what Exchange Commision was doing a criminal investigation into the financial doings of executives at Enron, MCI WorldCom, and Global Crossing. Do you think it's just a coincidence that many of the original records for these important investigations were destroyed when Building 7 blew up late in the afternoon that Tuesday.

Ponder that and please whatever you do, ignore that fact the building suffered major damage along with massive fires. Please also ignore all the testimony from the emergency workers who witnessed the damage and talked about it's imminent collapsed based on what they saw. My irrelevant fact trumps that.

Billyfromsphily

OK its an

OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD,

on Hold until his obliviousness poses a stupid question as his rebuttal.

.

frogball

that's such a shame...the records were lost...and yet the executives were still tried and convicted...somewhere a neo con is asking if maybe he used the wrong type of infra ray...

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Wait, wait, I want to ask an irrelevant question as proof of a conspiracy first.

Do you know what Exchange Commision was doing a criminal investigation into the financial doings of executives at Enron, MCI WorldCom, and Global Crossing. Do you think it's just a coincidence that many of the original records for these important investigations were destroyed when Building 7 blew up late in the afternoon that Tuesday.

Ponder that and please whatever you do, ignore that fact the building suffered major damage along with massive fires. Please also ignore all the testimony from the emergency workers who witnessed the damage and talked about it's imminent collapsed based on what they saw. My irrelevant fact trumps that.

Interesting. Perhaps this is related to the massive short selling on American and United Airlines that went on before 9/11.

Do I think it's a coincidence? Of course not. You guys overlook the incredible amount of coincidences you're being asked to believe.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Interesting. Perhaps this is related to the massive short selling on American and United Airlines that went on before 9/11.

Do I think it's a coincidence? Of course not. You guys overlook the incredible amount of coincidences you're being asked to believe.

Please post this is in the form of an irrelevant question.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Please post this is in the form of an irrelevant question.

You got me Snoopy, here is a totally irrelevant question: do you find the following data suspicious?

On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You got me Snoopy, here is a totally irrelevant question: do you find the following data suspicious?

On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

An 8 day graph, that's some pattern that unbiased blog uses.

This couldn't have anything to do with the realities of the stock during that time period:

Opening Prices:
16th July 2001 $38
23rd July 2001 $36
20th July 2001 $35.05
6th August 2001 $34.35
13th August 2001 $33.87
20th August 2001 $32.45
27th August 2001 $33.65
4th September 2001 $32.01
10th September 2001 $29.95

Looks like a pretty healthy stock to me, why would anyone dump those. Especially when AA was reporting all this great news on Friday September 7th.

12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR NOTES 'POOR' ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 'FALLING' DEMAND
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS DEFERRING JET PURCHASES BEYOND FIRM ORDERS
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR'S AMERICAN RETIRING 5 MORE 727 AIRCRAFT EARLY
12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR: AMERICAN TO RETIRE ENTIRE 727 FLEET BY END OF 2002
12:46pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SEES Q3 LOSS 'CONSIDERABLY LARGER' THAN Q2'S
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR ANTICIPATES 'SIGNIFICANT' LOSS IN Q4
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS CUTTING 2001-02 CAPEX BY NEARLY $1.2 BLN
12:50pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMERICAN AIR FEELS SQUEEZE OF FUEL PRICES, LABOR COSTS
1:07pm 09/07/01 AMR warns of wider losses - William Spain
2:44pm 09/07/01 Analyst: Airline Stocks Face At Least Another Bad Quarter
2:51pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR DOWN 3.4% AT $30.08 FOLLOWING Q3 WARNING
4:04pm 09/07/01 Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth - August Cole

Here's a question, since irrelevant questions is the game. Did you know that AMRO Analyst Ray Neidl told CBS MarketWatch said "you can expect to see further warnings from other airlines next week". Do you know what week he was talking about and what the first day of that week was?

One more question, would an already failing stock coupled with a ton of bad news on Friday the 7th, plus an expected announcement on 9/10 have any effect on the what people did with their stock.

KOAJaps

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
which part of "effective response to and recovery from a national emergency" don't you get?

if a nuke is set off in DC, where would you like Congress to gather to vote on a resolution?

If a nuke were to go off, then the authorization for the president to do what he needs to do is fast-tracked. This new law bypasses it. Don't you get it? There are protocols within the Constitution in order for the president, the legislative and judicial must follow. If you think there's too much red-tape, then North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba or any non-Democratic country would be to your liking. And then look forward. Bush implemented this, what then will happen if someone from the DLC is in charge? Say Hillary or Obama wins, or John Edward or any of the leftist elite become president? You wouldn't think that they wouldn't abuse their powers to their liking? Had they did, they would have dismanteled the Patriot Act 1 and 2 as well as NAFTA and CAFTA and spp.gov. Hell, the Dems are wanting to have illegals becoming citizens and it aint just Mexico. There are illegals from Iran? Saudi Arabia? So where did this form of abuse which led to this current law come to play and Bush getting elected? Ask Monica Goodling and Google Vote Caging. This damn law was passed because of lies and Bush igned this executive order on May 9. Did you hear about it back then? No? Why not? Because it's illegal but it's legal now because of the Patriot Act was signd into law.

Oh and when the Bush administration was asked about this new law? Their comment? No comment.

frogball

WOOHOO I WON A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

so to recap, the reason that falling debris is irrelevant to the collapse of WTC7 is because there were a large amount of put options purchased for airlines before 9/11....

researchers do research so that they don't have to rely on the theory of coincidence...if you did some research to show that these put options were abnormal then maybe someone would start listening to you....

http://www.dielegende.info/fakten_t...&storyid=251677

"On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this would have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit — hardly what any analyst would call a killing in the options markets. Based on historical data for both airlines, the put options just prior to Sept. 11 neither were dramatic nor unprecedented.

For example, there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11, including June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 at 1,144 puts, April 16 at 1,019 and Jan. 8 at 1,315 puts. United Airlines puts were a little more during the prior year, including Aug. 8 at 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 at 8,212 and March 13 at 8,072. Since such relatively small spikes in options occur frequently and in a random pattern, why would respected financial analysts and government investigators cry foul?"

Billyfromsphily

OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!!!!!

Yeah it was the investors!! The pigs are warming up for takeoff!

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!!!!!

Yeah it was the investors!! The pigs are warming up for takeoff!

well they did make $22M on the deal, seems like enough to take the risk of crashing 4 planes and blowing up 3 buildings....

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by KOAJaps
If a nuke were to go off, then the authorization for the president to do what he needs to do is fast-tracked. This new law bypasses it. Don't you get it? There are protocols within the Constitution in order for the president, the legislative and judicial must follow. If you think there's too much red-tape, then North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba or any non-Democratic country would be to your liking. And then look forward. Bush implemented this, what then will happen if someone from the DLC is in charge? Say Hillary or Obama wins, or John Edward or any of the leftist elite become president? You wouldn't think that they wouldn't abuse their powers to their liking? Had they did, they would have dismanteled the Patriot Act 1 and 2 as well as NAFTA and CAFTA and spp.gov. Hell, the Dems are wanting to have illegals becoming citizens and it aint just Mexico. There are illegals from Iran? Saudi Arabia? So where did this form of abuse which led to this current law come to play and Bush getting elected? Ask Monica Goodling and Google Vote Caging. This damn law was passed because of lies and Bush igned this executive order on May 9. Did you hear about it back then? No? Why not? Because it's illegal but it's legal now because of the Patriot Act was signd into law.

Oh and when the Bush administration was asked about this new law? Their comment? No comment.

i get that this President and his administration have interpreted the laws in their own way to increase presidential power, but you're making the leap that a directive such as this one could result in a future President having the authority to create law at-will...

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
An 8 day graph, that's some pattern that unbiased blog uses.

This couldn't have anything to do with the realities of the stock during that time period:

Opening Prices:
16th July 2001 $38
23rd July 2001 $36
20th July 2001 $35.05
6th August 2001 $34.35
13th August 2001 $33.87
20th August 2001 $32.45
27th August 2001 $33.65
4th September 2001 $32.01
10th September 2001 $29.95

Looks like a pretty healthy stock to me, why would anyone dump those. Especially when AA was reporting all this great news on Friday September 7th.

12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR NOTES 'POOR' ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 'FALLING' DEMAND
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS DEFERRING JET PURCHASES BEYOND FIRM ORDERS
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR'S AMERICAN RETIRING 5 MORE 727 AIRCRAFT EARLY
12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR: AMERICAN TO RETIRE ENTIRE 727 FLEET BY END OF 2002
12:46pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SEES Q3 LOSS 'CONSIDERABLY LARGER' THAN Q2'S
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR ANTICIPATES 'SIGNIFICANT' LOSS IN Q4
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS CUTTING 2001-02 CAPEX BY NEARLY $1.2 BLN
12:50pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMERICAN AIR FEELS SQUEEZE OF FUEL PRICES, LABOR COSTS
1:07pm 09/07/01 AMR warns of wider losses - William Spain
2:44pm 09/07/01 Analyst: Airline Stocks Face At Least Another Bad Quarter
2:51pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR DOWN 3.4% AT $30.08 FOLLOWING Q3 WARNING
4:04pm 09/07/01 Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth - August Cole

Here's a question, since irrelevant questions is the game. Did you know that AMRO Analyst Ray Neidl told CBS MarketWatch said "you can expect to see further warnings from other airlines next week". Do you know what week he was talking about and what the first day of that week was?

One more question, would an already failing stock coupled with a ton of bad news on Friday the 7th, plus an expected announcement on 9/10 have any effect on the what people did with their stock.

Are you trying to suggest that this was just some normal put option movment after some bad news?

A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4

Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

285 times the average! That's normal trading to you?

Billyfromsphily

Now your an investment banker?

Stick to what you do best......PARROTING others work!

Run along little boy , you have nothing to offer here on your OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!

Stickman

Who are you calling a little boy, Billy? If there's anyone on this board who sounds like a below average fourth grader, it's you.

Seriously, outside of DUDE and IP, you are the dumbest poster on SFN, and you're not a whole lot ahead of those two dolts.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Who are you calling a little boy, Billy? If there's anyone on this board who sounds like a below average fourth grader, it's you.

Seriously, outside of DUDE and IP, you are the dumbest poster on SFN, and you're not a whole lot ahead of those two dolts.

OH Stickman ...... You haven't proved shit and all your cute declarations about how things work just magnify your basic narcissism and fundamental stupidity.

Now go back to a regular 4 year college and get a degree in metalurgy or Structural engineering or flight dynamics or investment banking or one of all the subjects you parrot!

Its an OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD!

Stickman

hey dumbfuck, I've told you a thousand times, you don't have to be an authority in a subject to be able to analyze, discuss and discern the truth.

You repeatedly fall for the fallacy of appeal to authority.

You say I'm parroting information, but no one repeats the same stupid phrases over and over as much as you do.

You're an OFFICIAL SHIT HEAD!

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Are you trying to suggest that this was just some normal put option movment after some bad news?

A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4

Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

285 times the average! That's normal trading to you?

285 times compared to what. Is that number based against what happend on the others days of the same week as that chart would suggest. Is it comparing it against trading volume for other stocks with precending poort earnings reports. How exactly is that number calculated, and yes this is nothing out of the ordinary. Stocks remain steady during speculation and rise or drop drastically during earnings reports or expected announcements. A stock that is already tanking coupled with a day of announecements setting up poor earnings will cause anomolies.

This is not a coincidence. This like just about everything else you label a coincidence is an unrelated occurence that happens in the volatile stock market. It's par for the course when dealing with stocksl I personally only invest in low risk mutual funds (actually retured 13.5% last year) with a higher percentage of those investments split between my 401K and kids college funds.

frogball

wanna try this again?

"For example, there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11, including June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 at 1,144 puts, April 16 at 1,019 and Jan. 8 at 1,315 puts. United Airlines puts were a little more during the prior year, including Aug. 8 at 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 at 8,212 and March 13 at 8,072. Since such relatively small spikes in options occur frequently and in a random pattern, why would respected financial analysts and government investigators cry foul?"

your graph goes back 7 days? that's conclusive to you? what do the other spikes during the year indicate to you? perhaps there were other terrorist attacks planned but not carried out?

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules

This is not a coincidence.

i heard a good simile the other day that sums up the thinking of these CTers...

"It's like astronomers who find water on another planet and determine that igloos were once built there."

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
wanna try this again?

"For example, there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11, including June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 at 1,144 puts, April 16 at 1,019 and Jan. 8 at 1,315 puts. United Airlines puts were a little more during the prior year, including Aug. 8 at 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 at 8,212 and March 13 at 8,072. Since such relatively small spikes in options occur frequently and in a random pattern, why would respected financial analysts and government investigators cry foul?"

your graph goes back 7 days? that's conclusive to you? what do the other spikes during the year indicate to you? perhaps there were other terrorist attacks planned but not carried out?

You don't even show what your numbers are compared to?

I'm telling you that on the Thursday before 9/11 the puts were 285 times higher than average.

I'm not going to argue this back and forth. If you guys don't think that's strange, so be it.

In fact, a lot of these coincidences are not strange to you guys. There's nothing I can say to change that. I'll just keep posting strange coincidences and you guys can continue to lick clean the assholes of the administration.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
i heard a good simile the other day that sums up the thinking of these CTers...

"It's like astronomers who find water on another planet and determine that igloos were once built there."

Yeah and you got your ass kicked in a debate with an eskimo.

Don't make me quote you on how sick and defeated you felt after you petered out.

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You don't even show what your numbers are compared to?

I'm telling you that on the Thursday before 9/11 the puts were 285 times higher than average.

285 times higher than WHAT??? the day before? the average?

why are you avoiding the fact that similar spikes occurred that whole year?

evidence of igloos....

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
hey dumbfuck, I've told you a thousand times, you don't have to be an authority in a subject to be able to analyze, discuss and discern the truth.

You repeatedly fall for the fallacy of appeal to authority.

You say I'm parroting information, but no one repeats the same stupid phrases over and over as much as you do.

You're an OFFICIAL SHIT HEAD!

Polly want a cracker????????????????????????????????

My argument is with you and not a defense of the Administration.....something your limited intellect can't reason with.

The truth will never change .....................But your Bullshit does all the time! Now where is that degree in economics from??? Oh you can't make a living doing day trading so you are stuck as an dollar store employee in Florida.

frogball

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Yeah and you got your ass kicked in a debate with an eskimo.

Don't make me quote you on how sick and defeated you felt after you petered out.

oh here we go, back to your old "i kicked your ass" argument....

please do show the quote, i'm pretty sure it will be limited to "i felt defeated" and completely ignore the second half of the statement...please do, i'm waiting...show us your integrity....

Billyfromsphily

I think his foot is swollen from all the cyber ass kickings he has given.....It matches his swollen head from lack of thought process.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
285 times higher than WHAT??? the day before? the average?

why are you avoiding the fact that similar spikes occurred that whole year?

evidence of igloos....

Deja vu all over again. Remember in the debate how you would kick and scream about a piece of information you believed I omitted, which would invariably turn out to be right in front of your nose?

How many times did you have to apologize for doing that? I'm not going to twice debate a guy who has a reading comprehension problem.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Deja vu all over again. Remember in the debate how you would kick and scream about a piece of information you believed I omitted, which would invariably turn out to be right in front of your nose?

How many times did you have to apologize for doing that? I'm not going to twice debate a guy who has a reading comprehension problem.

Well then who are you going to debate? The number of people who have kicked your ass is higher than your IQ.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by frogball
oh here we go, back to your old "i kicked your ass" argument....

please do show the quote, i'm pretty sure it will be limited to "i felt defeated" and complete ignore the second half of the statement...please do, i'm waiting...show us your integrity....

I'm not wasting my time hunting down your sad little quotes, but I do remember it was something along the lines of "I felt defeated and sick because I couldn't change anyone's mind and then I couldn't find a fresh pad...waaaaaaaaahhhhhhh"

Close enough right?

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Well then who are you going to debate? The number of people who have kicked your ass is higher than your IQ.

I'll debate you. I've offered several times, you pick the topic. I don't even have to personally agree with my position, I'll still destroy whatever pea brained thought you dribble into your keyboard.

frogball

watch how i go into CT mode....

Here's my proof that I kicked Stickman's ASS!!!!!

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
9/11 is an incredibly complex historical event, and I think both Frog and I did the best we possibly could on an internet forum...Frog has my full respect from now on because he forced me to check all of my facts, back up every assertion. I made some mistakes...