Reality...

[maynard]

In the strict definition of the word narcotic, it exclusively refers to drugs with morphine-like qualities. i.e. opiates (heroine, opium, etc). Weed is only included under the definition in the loose sense of the word.

In the legal system narcotics strictly refers to opiates. Weed is not a narcotic legally.

under cali state law, yes it is.

as I said... <3 controversy

[OMGBEARS]

under cali state law, yes it is.

as I said... <3 controversy

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...eral/bruin.htm

There is no controversy, it's a matter of legalese. Weed is not a narcotic in the true sense of the word, whether or not California law says it is.

[loka]

It's called history. Someone with the brain of a banana has to know bin Laden had a begrudging obsession with the World Trade Center. The FBI office in New York had to know the World Trade Center would be a remarkable target that be "spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning." In 1998 is when the threat came in, and the FBI office of New York did nothing. They speculated what little it had to do with them. CIA forwarded a message to the FAA mentioning a hijacking taking place a month before it happened.

There is countless articles of the CIA failing with the information that they had received and did not take serious. This is why the division of Homeland Security was created and broken off to divisions. The CIA failed, and the FBI did nothing with the information.

It's been stated that this is the worst American Intelligence collection since Pearl Harbor for sure. They looked at the information and laughed.

If your looking for solid evidence go pick up a fucking book. I've done my picking up books and reading up on the subject. I have manuals that Al-Qaeda uses for their recruits, and redacted papers that show the intelligence they picked out since 98-01

[maynard]

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...eral/bruin.htm

I know how 2 use google as well, thx. ppl have in-fact been charged for having narcotics when in posesion of marijuana.

but if you want me 2 say "controlled substance" or "drugs" instead as if it matters, then fine Lol. my point is still the same.

and that's that prior 2 9/11 drug laws were lax.

[OMGBEARS]

If your looking for solid evidence go pick up a fucking book. I've done my picking up books and reading up on the subject. I'm all lawed and criminal justice out with the subject.

I've been looking through There's a Wocket in My Pocket! and there's nothing in there.

HALP PLX

[Christmas]

I never said the government cares about a hand ful of your ppl, I'm just saying the governemnt was controling those planes. this isn't the first time the government has imposed a fake scare tactic like that. and all that vid evidence is bull shit, it's about as real as when the government released that vid of bin laden claiming 2 take credit for shit

You have to be fucking nuts, Maynard.

Loka: Specifics? It doesn't matter if the twin towers are a target considering planes were used and it was the first time in history commercial airlines were used as missles. It also doesn't help if a specific time and date is not given, specific airlines are not given, specific suspects are given, and specific details on what they would do are not given. It is like calling the police saying that soon someone is going to rob the nearest Comerica Bank. Who? How? When? Do you believe it makes sense to station multiple officers there indefinitely simply because you received a single tip that a robbery could occur?

Details.

[maynard]

I think the next book you pick up loka, should be "demolitions" and "implosions" then look at the twin towers and try and explain 2 me how that's not a demolition from the inside out like all standard jobs.

[OMGBEARS]

I know how 2 use google as well, thx. ppl have in-fact been charged for having narcotics when in posesion of marijuana.

but if you want me 2 say "controlled substance" or "drugs" instead as if it matters, then fine Lol. my point is still the same.

and that's that prior 2 9/11 drug laws were lax.

That fact can be attributed to having a conservative government for 8 years. Drug laws become more strict as people with conservative values are in power. It's a general trend in government.

I'm about the most liberal person you'll meet, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to the 8 years before Obama.

As a side note, I'm pretty cool with Weed; it's not addictive, doesn't cause aggression, and is impossible to overdose on. You shouldn't drive or operate heavy machinery, but it's less of an issue than with alcohol. WHERE'S THE PROBLEM PEOPLES?

[loka]

You know nothing of law enforcement. There is a difference between "having details" and being vigilant to those areas. We'll sleep better knowing you won't have anything to do with interpreting threats and how to react to them.

[Christmas]

I think the next book you pick up loka, should be "demolitions" and "implosions" then look at the twin towers and try and explain 2 me how that's not a demolition from the inside out like all standard jobs.

Oh my goodness Maynard you have to be kidding me.

1. No such thing as a top down demoliton. The odds of the explosives surviving is also a huge issue.

2. Noise. Not near enough noise.

3. No visible flashes up and down the building prior to collapse (explosions occur within the building prior to another set of explosives taking down the building)

4. No time to put the needed explosives in the necessary areas without removing obvious visible elements (demo crews work with completely gutted buildings and still take weeks to set them up despite the drastic difference in size) and being seen by office workers.

No thank you, Maynard.

You know nothing of law enforcement. There is a difference between "having details" and being vigilant to those areas. We'll sleep better knowing you won't have anything to do with interpreting threats and how to react to them.

So you mean to tell me we should waste our resources on every single tip and threat for whatever time it takes just in case one of them is true?

Come on Loka, bring something substantial to the debate (except read a book since I could say that for any one of my assertions) instead of "haha government laughed at threats and shit". Same bullshit conspiracy nuts have tried to use for the past seven years.