The write up on that piece contradicts itself. Its say the plane would in theory crumple on impact but flew in whole. It then says the is no way the plane would fit entirely inside the tower so some of the plane would have remained on the outside. Here's a thought; it crumpled inside the tower? #logicfail
In the age of technology in which we live, it's obvious that net access records can give a good insight into someones activities, and that the security services would therefore take an interest in such records. The only people who have anything to fear are those who are engaged in activities that their net records could add fuel to in terms of evidence against them. The average Joe has nothing to fear from the proposed legislation as it stands. However, I think that human rights groups are right to challenge the premise of the law, as the thought that the information could be made available for non security related investigations to people not confined by strict controls would be wrong. So the fear that it could be the thin end of the wedge is a valid one.
Here's a thought read the thing ffs. It clearly states that the plane should have crumpled, and that because of the distance the wreckage should have been visible inside the building, plus we should have seen it crumple outside the building as most of the plane would be still outside the building when the plane struck the centre columns. it really is not that hard to figure it out. When you watch the footage, there is no external damage to that plane whatsoever until it just disappears into the building without 1 yes 1 piece coming off it, not even hte wing tips that the engineers are not allowed stand on because they are so flimsy. Those wingtips cut through inches of steel and concrete, physical impossibility, maybe at a few thousand miles an hour you might manage it, but 500 knotts? That steel was like the armour on a WWII Russian tank The only steel buildings ever to collapse from fire collapsed that day, 3 of them into their own footprints.. you have better odds on jumping to the moon #falselogicfail
I agree with you as long as those at the top stay responsible and reasonable. In all likelihood we have nothing to fear. There are three possible worries/scenarios though. 1) Someone extremist takes power. This is worst case scenario and definitely the least likely in the US/UK but could happen under a period of extreme duress militarily or economically. Democracies and republics do fail. Look at Sulla and Caesar in Rome. Wrong person in power could look up anyone who opposed them quite easy. Totalitarian regimes tend to make all sorts of things illegal... Why: so that everyone breaks the law, it's unavoidable not to. Then they have an excuse to arrest you. 2) Someone with access to information abuses it... I wonder what my exes new boyfriend is googling... 3) Data hacks/breaches. No system is 100% fool proof. Frequently large organization don't ask "if" they'll be hacked but rather "how, when, and how can we mitigate the damage when it occurs". Would you like some shady cybergang in Russia having access to your entire internet history?
Only 59 secs, a CNN report on the pentagon, this interview was never seen again after that first day Inspection of site - no evidence of any plane crash anywhere near the pentagon. When this is hidden, plus the witness accounts that there were no planes, the witness accounts of seeing the cut down poles in the highway before the pentagon was hit, all hidden, the fake calls from the planes out of range of the cell towers and the U93 had no plane phone at all, none of the planes squaked HIJACKING and all transponders were turned off, all done by a bunch of guys who couldn't fly planes bar one who could barely fly a pissy cessna and proceeded to fly impossible speeds and angles to pull of what were amazing feats. BOLLOCKS No plane at Pentagon Lets hear the workaround loogic for this L This guy inspected the site, no plane.. it didn't "vapourise" engines n all.
Some amateur did this to show how easy it is to make such footage. Fighter jet hits WTC on CNN Imagine what pros can do.
However, we know it was a real plane as we watched it hit. So whatever spin they're trying to put on the supposed science behind their theory it's patently incorrect. The fact that a passenger plane flying at 500mph managed to smash through a glass building isn't that shocking to me like.
What use would it be to them in terms of my actual life? Barring the obvious bank and credit card details my cyber footprint is meaningless information unless you're trying to sell me something.
And... Somehow pay off the thousands of tourists (some from hostile nations) and millions of locals to say they saw it? Not to mention they could have found an excuse to go to war without killing thousands of civilians. (see Iraq). It's a bit of a ludicrous theory. You can (or could see) the World Trade towers from Queens (even from train), Brooklyn, New Jersey, Tribecca, Manhattan... There's a huge area swarming with people that can see the towers.
Still want to maintain you are not claiming there were no planes during 9/11? Again, one question that debunks the whole thing....."WHY....ADD....PLANES?" Just say it was a bomb. You telling me that if the news reported a plane crashed into the pentagon, that not a single person from the probably tens of thousands of people in the vicinity, would speak out and say "erm....I was there....there was no plane, it was just an explosion" a ****ing 747 flying at low heights and smashing into a building isn't something you would miss if you are within a mile radius of the crash. Adding planes when there weren't any would be the most ridiculous idea ever. Conspirator 1: Lets engineer a terrorist attack on US soil so we can attack the middle east Conspirator 2: Ok cool, what buildings shall we hit? Conspirator 1: hmmmm. The World Trade Center? AND the Pentagon, lets really amp up the fear factor! Conspirator 2: Excellent so how we gonna explain how the terrorists planted bombs in these buildings, avoiding all security? Conspirator 1: We'll say planes hit them! Conspirator 2: Eh? Conspirator 1: We'll get some planes to crash into the buildings! Conspirator 2: What Planes?! Who will fly them? Conspirator 1: Thats the best part, there won't be any planes, we'll just say there was! haha Conspirator 2: Erm..How would we pull that off? Surely the whole of New York will say there was no planes Conspirator 1: Doesn't matter, we'll CGI planes onto some news footage, people will believe anything they see on TV. Conspirator 2: But what about the million eye ball witnesses, the response teams and people who were in the tower that survived, they would surely rumble us? Conspirator 1: How about we hijack real planes and crash them then? Conspirator 2: Why? Then we have to doom more innocent people to die, plus we will have to somehow get the airlines on board....your plan is ******ed! Lets just bomb them for ****s sake! Conspirator 1: No, It HAS TO BE PLANES DAMN IT!! **** YOU *Flashback* Young Conspirator 1: Merry Christmas mummy Mummy: Merry Christmas Joey! Here's your present Young Conspirator 1: Gee, thanks mom, Is it the Apache helicopter scale model kit I wanted? It is isn't it? Mummy: Erm....well you see.... *boy rips open present* Young Conspirator 1: The **** is this? A Toy 747? Mummy: They had sold out of Apache's Joey, I did my best. Young Conspirator 1: You ****ing Whore!! I don't want no planes bitch...I want my Apache!! WWWWAAAAAHHH! Ok I am very bored.
[ These amateurs were ****ing geniuses then lad. Either that or they were all plants and in on it EDIT: If you can watch the footage at 1.21 and still come back and tell me that's not a plane hitting a building then you're a genuine wacko fella
How could I know that, I could suspect, did you just watch the CNN interview, it#s only a minute, no plane at the pentagon according to their guest who inspected the site first hand. So we have a guy who was there on the day on site and seen no trace of any plane at the pentagon. People think they watched this live, they didn't. ABC News, no plane at WTC reported. CNN no plane at pentagon, this was the first day. Witness accounts no planes, bombs, firemen "we heard explosions beneath our feet", these are not scared people they are trained professionals after all. Fire Chief on the day "we have bombs in the building". Eye witness accouts in the media from that day you probably didn;t see Firemen, secondary explosion. Now I know you wont watch those because you are not actually wanting to know the whole story, just what you want to believe, watch them. Above is the pentagon no plane report I posted you probably didn't watch either. Opinions seem to be better than evidence for you guys, not proof, but evidence the official story is bollocks
Never illegally downloaded anything. Been to a website the Mrs wouldn't approve? Or the boss? Or a client? Or an emloyee? Never purchased anything online that you would rather be private? Or researched a symptom or disease that might make people ask questions? Never got into a fight with someone online who might like to know where you live. Would you be comfortable with Astro knowing your real name, place of work, and home address? Anyone who had full access to your data could access any of these things.
