quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The UN does charge its members dues, and its members are supposed to support UN operations such as peace keeping forces.

At present the US is over 200 million dollars behind on dues and supporting funds for peace keeping operations dating back to 2005.

This does not equate to taxes of its members, since there is no way to ENFORCE payment of those dues.

Nor does the UN have the authority to tax citizens of member countries like some right wing idiots like to claim. The UN does not have a standing military, contrary to what Right wing idiots claim and the UN does not have the proper organization to become a centralized government for the planet, contrary to what the RIGHT WING IDIOTS like to claim.

My point was that any treaty that the u.s. enters into and has the advice and consent of the senate becomes the law of the land.
If and only if the u.n has the right to tax, charge dues or assess fees then we are by contract legally obligated to pay them. As for the ability of the u.n. to tax the world at large I do believe there are five vetos on the security council.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The UN does charge its members dues, and its members are supposed to support UN operations such as peace keeping forces.

At present the US is over 200 million dollars behind on dues and supporting funds for peace keeping operations dating back to 2005.

This does not equate to taxes of its members, since there is no way to ENFORCE payment of those dues.

Nor does the UN have the authority to tax citizens of member countries like some right wing idiots like to claim. The UN does not have a standing military, contrary to what Right wing idiots claim and the UN does not have the proper organization to become a centralized government for the planet, contrary to what the RIGHT WING IDIOTS like to claim.

My point was that any treaty that the u.s. enters into and has the advice and consent of the senate becomes the law of the land.
If and only if the u.n has the right to tax, charge dues or assess fees then we are by contract legally obligated to pay them. As for the ability of the u.n. to tax the world at large I do believe there are five vetos on the security council.

quote:

Okay, let me make this simple.

quote:

For the UN to tax people on an individual basis, it would have to be a WORLD GOVERNMENT BODY. The UN is not that. It was never meant to be, it does not have the organizational structure to become one.

quote:

Paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories aside, I would suggest you do some research into the organizational structure of the UN.

quote:

By the way, even the sanctions set by the UN are NOT compulsory, any member state of the UN can ignore them if they so desire. I may point out that the former Soviet Union was a member of the UN, and when UN sponsored troops entered the Korean conflict, the Soviet Union AND China supplied the North Koreans, with Russian pilots flying MIG fighters from basis in China and the Chinese even sent troops to fight against the UN forces.

quote:

On other words, the UN really has no power to enforce anything. It is entirely up to the member states to agree and follow the UN resolutions or ignore them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thaz

Steel frame buildings are normally fitted with some sort of fire proofing. A fact which has lead to the early demolition of many tower blocks as the material of choice was often asbestos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Road_(flats)

However steel starts to do really wierd things at normal building fire temps which is why you need the fire proofing:-

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/SCI.htm

for a rather spiffy and very scientifc article on the subject, including lots of experimental and real world evidence.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/

Also provides academic studies on the twin towers, Madrid and so on.

The accepted theory for the trade towers is that the gypsum wall boarding used as fire protection is fragile and did not survive contact with the aircraft impacts therefore alllowing the raging fires to weaken the steel sufficently for collapse. I am not a engineer and so I'm not going to comment on that. We dont need to go into more bizarre conspiracy theroys though, fire has doen nasty things to several tower blocks before and since 9/11.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The constitution of the u.s. states that all treaties entered into and approved become the law of the land.
If the taxation ability of the u.n. was an issue it should have been taken up at the time of the signing of the document.
Not that our signature on the dotted line ever meant anything and was not revocable at the whim of the govt.

quote:

Signing an international agreement does not give carte blanche to do anything other than act according to the rules of said agreement.

Why don't you check with someone who can read and ask them where I said otherwise.
You clearly implied it when you stated http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4183919

quote:


And my point was that you were (and are) quite wrong. As I stated, steel does not need to melt to be seriously weakened.

quote:

Neither does it need to reach anything like 2,200 degrees F.

quote:

It will be very soft at 1000 degrees F - hardly able to hold up immense structures like WTC 1 & 2

quote:

When something melts it is in a liquid state. That is the definition. Steel will be in a plastic malleable state a long long time before it reaches anything like that temperature of melting.

quote:

Your own beliefs are your own business but it would be nice if you had the capacity to be forthright in terms of what you personally believe when you then repeatedly (and very often abusively) challenge others on their own beliefs.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The constitution of the u.s. states that all treaties entered into and approved become the law of the land.
If the taxation ability of the u.n. was an issue it should have been taken up at the time of the signing of the document.
Not that our signature on the dotted line ever meant anything and was not revocable at the whim of the govt.

quote:

quote:

Signing an international agreement does not give carte blanche to do anything other than act according to the rules of said agreement.

Why don't you check with someone who can read and ask them where I said otherwise.

quote:


You clearly implied it when you stated http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4183919

That statement is clear in what it says...it implies nothing. That you choose for it to imply something is most instructive.

quote:

Implied or not, your statement is clear enough. Your view is that since the US state joined the UN, the UN has every right to impose taxes on US citizens unless it was made clear the UN had no ability to tax: "If the taxation ability of the u.n. was an issue it should have been taken up at the time of the signing of the document." That's utterly absurd because tax wasn't an issue at the time, and joining the UN did not alter the status of the sovereignty of the nations that were its members.

I said that if the u.s. had agreed to be taxed by the u.n. that would be a contract.
I said that if the u.s. had not agreed to be taxed by the u.n. that would not be a contract.
Do I need to use smaller words?

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

quote:

The range of burn temps for n/a jet fuel(which is nothing more than highly filtered diesel fuel)is between 500 and 600f.[/quote

quote:

No you are wrong. That is the lower end of the temperature for standard open air fires. The internal conditions within the WTC before collapse was anything but that. Furthermore it was more than simply a jet fuel fire.

So far you have failed to show any evidence in support of your opinion that n/a fires reach and maintain 1000+f.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

quote:

Yes exactly! We looked through the research and finding of the experts so we know the truth and as such the fairytale that you're pushing without any evidence to back it up looks like exactly what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

The range of burn temps for n/a jet fuel(which is nothing more than highly filtered diesel fuel)is between 500 and 600f.

quote:

No you are wrong. That is the lower end of the temperature for standard open air fires. The internal conditions within the WTC before collapse was anything but that. Furthermore it was more than simply a jet fuel fire.

So far you have failed to show any evidence in support of your opinion that n/a fires reach and maintain 1000+f.

quote:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

quote:

You asserted the melting of steel was required by merely citing its melting point here http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4186138 then you contested the source I cited on the matter here http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4186194 and furthermore you did not then accept the point regarding weakened steel after it was made to you repeatedly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

You asserted the melting of steel was required by merely citing its melting point here http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4186138 then you contested the source I cited on the matter here http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4186194 and furthermore you did not then accept the point regarding weakened steel after it was made to you repeatedly.

I cited the melting temp of steel and you supplied all of the conjecture as to what it might mean.
Try reading and responding to what I post and not what you think is infered.