9/11 being an inside job - Page 10

Fiddytree · 07-19-08, 10:22 PM

What I keep coming back to is this idea that Neoconservatives are somehow in collaboration with each other to use existing laws to create a United States that is fully unable to counter their ideology.

It reminds me of this one "self-proclaimed Straussian" I once talked to who was literally convinced that the proper role of the United States is to create an empire that is very closely linked to an oligarchy of Neoconservatives. Before I began researching them, it almost sounded like a possible plot, but the more I read, the more I began to see that a lot of this mythology is overhyped.

I'm sorry, I haven't been able to find anything to suggest that there is plotting amongst them to completely revamp the United States into such a country.

Gladiator · 07-19-08, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Just click the links I gave you bank customer transactions have not been subject to privacy laws since at least the 1970s as per the SCOTUS ruling in the 1976 decision of U.S. V. Miller.

Regardless I asked for what privacy rights were diminished by the neocons, these rights didn't exist so they could not be violated or diminished, banking transactions held by financial institutions are not protected by the 4th amendment thus your assertion that the neocons needed 9-11 to implement such policies makes no sense what so ever since they already had such authority if they wanted it, yes the record keeping requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and the Money Laundering Act of 1986 were tightened but its main focus was on international banking and improving information sharing between financial institutions but to suggest that these policies couldn't have been implemented without a 9-11 is ridiculous.

If it is so simple and clear cut, how come I can't find any references to clearly explain what the FBI does with my banking information?

..

section eight · 07-19-08, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

If it is so simple and clear cut, how come I can't find any references to clearly explain what the FBI does with my banking information?
..

It's not your banking information it is the financial institutions you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as per the ruling of the SCOTUS, you willingly interact with the banks, if you don't like it keep your cash under your bed.

Quote:

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)

United States v. Miller

No. 74-1179

Argued January 12, 1976

Decided April 21, 1976

425 U.S. 435

Syllabus

Respondent, who had been charged with various federal offenses, made a pretrial motion to suppress microfilms of checks, deposit slips, and other records relating to his accounts at two banks, which maintained the records pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (Act). He contended that the subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to which the material had been produced by the banks were defective, and that the records had thus been illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following denial of his motion, respondent was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, having concluded that the subpoenaed documents fell within a constitutionally protected zone of privacy.

Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-446.

(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-441.

(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. The Act's recordkeeping requirements do not alter . these considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank depositor in the bank's records of his account. Pp. 441-443.

(c) Issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate a defendant's rights, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 416 U. S. 53. Pp. 425 U. S. 444-445.

Page 425 U. S. 436

(d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process." That does not mean that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is used to obtain a depositor's bank records. Pp. 425 U. S. 445-446.

500 F.2d 751, reversed and remanded.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 425 U. S. 447, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 425 U. S. 455, filed dissenting opinions.

UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 425 U. S. 435 (1976) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Gladiator · 07-21-08, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

It's not your banking information it is the financial institutions you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as per the ruling of the SCOTUS, you willingly interact with the banks, if you don't like it keep your cash under your bed.

If not for the Necons frightening the Americans, the 1970 amont of $10,000.00 threshold would have been incraesd with inflation ot $50,000.00.

You deny that the Neocns did not intend to frighten the American public and Congress? I think the Ne0cons have the American public and Congress scared silly.

section eight · 07-21-08, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

If not for the Necons frightening the Americans, the 1970 amont of $10,000.00 threshold would have been incraesd with inflation ot $50,000.00.

You deny that the Neocns did not intend to frighten the American public and Congress? I think the Ne0cons have the American public and Congress scared silly.

A) Yes I deny that.

B) It was not the neo-cons intent to terrorize U.S. citizens that was the intent of the terrorists.

C) Again you still have not given any true examples of privacy rights which have been taken away since 9-11 as phone records are not protected and haven't been since the SCOTUS ruling in the 1979 case of Smith V. Maryland and bank records are not protected by the 4th amendment and haven't been since the SCOTUS decision in the U.S. V. Miller case of 1976.

Xoote · 07-21-08, 01:19 PM

i think 9/11 was a conspiracy

DeeJayH · 07-21-08, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoote

i think 9/11 was a conspiracy

I never thought it was, but now that you put it that way....

section eight · 07-21-08, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

I never thought it was, but now that you put it that way....

It was a conspiracy... committed by a group of radical Islamists known as Al-Qaeda.

Chanda · 07-21-08, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Talk

The FEMA report also says that there were firefighters in the building earlier in the day. (pg 23)

Firefighters "...made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the
fires (FEMA)," so why would the fire commissioner tell Silverstein, much later in the day, "it looks like we are not going to be able to control the fires," if there was never an attempt to control them?

Quote:

Firefighters were still in the area and constantly refer to being pulled out of and away from the building...Once again the term is NEVER used to refer to the demolition of a building and it was constantly used by firefighters when discussing withdrawal.

The question is, why were the firefighters pulled away from the building? How did they know the building would collapse when there was no scientific reason for it to collapse? Somehow they knew it would collapse, how? They warned others in the area that the building was getting ready to fall. Witnesses heard explosions and a countdown. Here is a picture of WTC 7 at around 3 p.m. with sporadic fires on 8 floors:

Quote:

What significance did the collapse of WTC 7 have? Why not just leave it at 1 and 2?

WTC 7 is the smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition. Buildings do not fall symetrically at near free fall speed into their own footprints for any reason other than controlled demolition. Controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko said it was "absolutely" a controlled demolition, and "these guys knew what they were doing."

Building 5 and 6 were closer to the WTC towers and both sustained more damage than WTC 7. Building 6 was a raging inferno, but did not collapse implosion style:

The collapse of the north tower scraped the side WTC 5, but it didn't collapse:

Quote:

As shocking as it may seem to you I once did believe the 9/11 truth bull**** until I realized it didn't stand up when questioned.

There isn't an "it." There are individuals and groups searching for 9/11 answers not provided by the government. Some have offered diverse theories that may or may not be plausible, but they are not united on a single theory, except that the official version doesn't add up.

Quote:

The entire movement is filled with racist psuedo-libertarians who are less interested in the truth and more interested in creating an unfalsifiable theory about government involvement in 9/11.

The leaders of the truth movement are physicists, architects, and other professionals. According to a 2006 poll, 36% of Americans believe that some individuals in the government were involved--not exactly a lunatic fringe.

Quote:

Only video tapes of him claiming responsibility.

And you based your opinion on that? Do you know bin Laden isn't wanted by the FBI for 9/11, because there is no evidence linking him to it?

Quote:

Where is that documentation for 9/11?

You think the government would have documented its involvement in 9/11?

section eight · 07-21-08, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

Firefighters "...made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the
fires (FEMA)," so why would the fire commissioner tell Silverstein, much later in the day, "it looks like we are not going to be able to control the fires," if there was never an attempt to control them?

The question is, why were the firefighters pulled away from the building? How did they know the building would collapse when there was no scientific reason for it to collapse? Somehow they knew it would collapse, how? They warned others in the area that the building was getting ready to fall. Witnesses heard explosions and a countdown. Here is a picture of WTC 7 at around 3 p.m. with sporadic fires on 8 floors:

WTC 7 is the smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition. Buildings do not fall symetrically at near free fall speed into their own footprints for any reason other than controlled demolition. Controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko said it was "absolutely" a controlled demolition, and "these guys knew what they were doing."

Building 5 and 6 were closer to the WTC towers and both sustained more damage than WTC 7. Building 6 was a raging inferno, but did not collapse implosion style:

The collapse of the north tower scraped the side WTC 5, but it didn't collapse:

There isn't an "it." There are individuals and groups searching for 9/11 answers not provided by the government. Some have offered diverse theories that may or may not be plausible, but they are not united on a single theory, except that the official version doesn't add up.

The leaders of the truth movement are physicists, architects, and other professionals. According to a 2006 poll, 36% of Americans believe that some individuals in the government were involved--not exactly a lunatic fringe.

And you based your opinion on that? Do you know bin Laden isn't wanted by the FBI for 9/11, because there is no evidence linking him to it?

You think the government would have documented its involvement in 9/11?

lmfao no scientific reason for the collapse? You mean like the 10 story huge hole that was ripped out of the side of the building or the raging unfought fires that had been burning for hours? And what are you suggesting, that the FDNY was somehow in on this conspiracy to murder hundreds of their brothers? I'd love to see one of you little twoofers make THAT assertion down at ground zero with one of your bullhorns. The NIST explanation is almost done on WTC7 and guess what that means? No more vacuum for you to play in twoofer, the twoofers so do love their vacuums.