LCFC - Coming soon to a cinema near you...

Mince said:
BECAUSE YOU ARE GRATUITOUSLY ACCUSING PEOPLE (YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO) OF 2,700 PLUS COUNTS OF THE WORST CRIME KNOWN TO HUMANKIND!


Yes, I do expect you to fully solve the crime. I can be really demanding that way.



(Damnit, you made me type in all caps. Curse you)
Click to expand...

Calm down hun. We don't need to solve the crime. If an engineer had irrefutable evidence that builing 7 was a CD, would he have to have a suspect before he presented that evidence?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Check the FBI website. When you show me some hard evidence of OBLs involvement I will convert to your church and become a jref gravy groupie.
Click to expand...
Is that your best evidence that someone in the USG was involved? Do you rest your case?
 
Russell Pickering said:
Leading a nation to war under false pretenses that resulted in the deaths of over 3000 soldiers (so far) and thousands of foreign citizens (some innocent) is called.......................
Click to expand...

Stupidity Russell.

Now can you answer my question please what is the connection between 911 being an inside job and the war in Iraq?
 
Russell Pickering said:
Leading a nation to war under false pretenses that resulted in the deaths of over 3000 soldiers (so far) and thousands of foreign citizens (some innocent) is called.......................
Click to expand...


I've presented this at least twice before:


This is why we are in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li.../un/index.html


Quote:
1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.
Quote:
1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

Yes, there were no WMD's. But before March of 2003, who knew?


ETA: And I was referring to the 2,700 plus killed on 9/11, not any casualties of war.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
I don't agree with everything killtown says but at least he does research. He doesn't sit on his arse parroting the official story.
Click to expand...
No, he sits on his arse and harasses a victim of 9/11 with his own story. His research? Are you kidding me? I encourage you to read the 75-page thread here about the flight 93 plume, you know, the one Killtown started. His research abilities are fully on display there.

Given any thought to why you lie so often?
 
I don't have to provide a new suspect. You accuse bin laden, so please let me see the hard evidence against him.
Click to expand...
Such as an exact transcript to his confession tape, or a link to the video itself?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I don't have to provide a new suspect. You accuse bin laden, so please let me see the hard evidence against him.
Click to expand...
I agree with what the investigators say. I encourage you to read their reports. The burden of proof is on you to show that they're wrong.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Russell Pickering said:
Gravy,

Imagine that I am the District Attorney and prove to me explosives were not used.

I have:

1) 40 some firefighter witnesses.

2) Video of squibs similar to CD.

3) 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed straight down all on the same day in the same place for the first time in history. At least one not hit by a plane.

4) Civilian eyewitnesses who reported explosions.

5) A non explanation of WTC 7 from FEMA.

P.S. Don't bring your NIST reports because they are not admissible as evidence in a court. They also failed to test for explosives even if they were.

Russell
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Russell, but you state that as though you'd win the case. So please... take it to court already. I honestly see no reason why you guys aren't doing more to bring this out.

You claim the evidence is on your side.

You claim 83% of the American population at least "have questions".

Go then! WTF are you waiting for? Let's blow this puppy wide open! Would the Doubletree video be integral at this point? You don't trust the NIST reports now, why bother waiting for their building 7 report?

Your troops are ready. You're well armed.

.... and yet? Nothing.

So please. I am asking you when? When will this movement stop dancing around with accusations, put their cards on the table and DO SOMETHING about it? I sincerely want to know.
 
Gravy said:
I agree with what the investigators say. I encourage you to read their reports. The burden of proof is on you to show that they're wrong.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Right heres the deal gravy:

If you show me hard evidence of OBLs involvement, I will immediately cease all CT activities and convert my film to one that supports the official version.
 
Gravy said:
Ah, now I see why jessica is spending so much time here. She's avoiding RWGuinn's challenge here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2056675&postcount=359

jessica, you said you wouldn't discuss the collapse of the towers with someone who doesn't understand the necessary math. You've now failed to meet the challenge of two people who do understand.

Just pathetic.
Click to expand...

Gravy as I pointed out, a quick search of the forum drew a concession that the jrefers had accepted the refutation produced by hoffman. The first paper you cited was submitted on 13 sept 2001. I rest my case.
 
realitybites said:
I'm sorry Russell, but you state that as though you'd win the case. So please... take it to court already. I honestly see no reason why you guys aren't doing more to bring this out.

You claim the evidence is on your side.

You claim 83% of the American population at least "have questions".

Go then! WTF are you waiting for? Let's blow this puppy wide open! Would the Doubletree video be integral at this point? You don't trust the NIST reports now, why bother waiting for their building 7 report?

Your troops are ready. You're well armed.

.... and yet? Nothing.

So please. I am asking you when? When will this movement stop dancing around with accusations, put their cards on the table and DO SOMETHING about it? I sincerely want to know.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the DA's face when Russell shows up and says "I'm here for you to prove to me that 9/11 wasn't an inside job."

Is any of this sinking in, Russell? Do you understand that since none of the investigators of any element of the 9/11 attacks or its consequences supports your position, the burden of proof is on you?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Calm down hun.
Click to expand...

Please don't presume to know my state of mind and I'll do you the same favor. K? Thx.


We don't need to solve the crime. If an engineer had irrefutable evidence that builing 7 was a CD, would he have to have a suspect before he presented that evidence?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't intend on a career in law. Am I correct?

You are correct that you can prove A without having suspect B. But how will you procede legally without a responsible party?

And your evidence is very refutable.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Right heres the deal gravy:

If you show me hard evidence of OBLs involvement, I will immediately cease all CT activities and convert my film to one that supports the official version.
Click to expand...
Yet another straw man argument? Perhaps you're not aware of this, but bin Laden is not wanted by the US for his involvement in 9/11. You really should read the Commission report, rather than just posting pictures of it.
 
jessicarabbit said:
RWguinn didnt make the assertion, you did. I would be happy to discuss the finer points with you.
Click to expand...
You're a liar and a coward. You are unable to discuss the finer points with anyone.

Have you given any thought to why you lie so often? Does that concern you? Are you planning to change?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I don't have to provide a new suspect.
Click to expand...

You see, this is the very problem. Thats all you guys want do is point out anomolies and absense of evidence(or too much evidence, or faked evidence, etc, etc..). Can't be bothered to do any more....?

How about you people get your act together, come up with a coherent alterate theory that:
-reconciles all of your anomolies
-does not contain mutually exclusive sub-theories
-produces new suspects
-is supported by academia(y'know - peer review)
-is backed by testimony of real, actual whistleblowers(like those invisibombers)
... and let us poke holes in it for a change. Seriously, its been 5 years and there are ZERO alternate theories, why is that do you suppose? Could it be that the best one doesnt pass the laugh test?
 
Gravy said:
Yet another straw man argument? Perhaps you're not aware of this, but bin Laden is not wanted by the US for his involvement in 9/11. You really should read the Commission report, rather than just posting pictures of it.
Click to expand...

So you agree he wasn't involved? Right we are making progress.

By the way, the irony detector has just melted when you accused me of strawmanning.
 
jessicarabbit said:
So you agree he wasn't involved? Right we are making progress.

By the way, the irony detector has just melted when you accused me of strawmanning.
Click to expand...
No, fool. I agree that the USG doesn't have sufficient evidence to indict him. I take his confessions seriously, and you would be wise to do the same, but that doesn't make them admissible in court. See the difference, strawlady?
 
I have just one question for Russell...

What evidence convinced you that a plane did crash into the Pentagon ?
 
Russell Pickering said:
United 93 gross - $31.4 million domestically, and $73.5 million worldwide (10% of the first 3 days donated).

World Trade Center - Worldwide Gross $132,236,496
Click to expand...


you have trouble differentiating between what is considered GOOD films, with original footage shot by a team of professionals and with the permission of those families they portrayed.

than a bad video blog done by a drop-out filmmaker, using footage without permission and comitting copyright theft.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I don't agree with everything killtown says but at least he does research. He doesn't sit on his arse parroting the official story.
Click to expand...


research? if I did the kind of research he does, I wouldn't have graduated from college. More likely kicked out for bad academics.
 
apathoid said:
You see, this is the very problem. Thats all you guys want do is point out anomolies and absense of evidence(or too much evidence, or faked evidence, etc, etc..). Can't be bothered to do any more....?

How about you people get your act together, come up with a coherent alterate theory that:
-reconciles all of your anomolies
-does not contain mutually exclusive sub-theories
-produces new suspects
-is supported by academia(y'know - peer review)
-is backed by testimony of real, actual whistleblowers(like those invisibombers)
... and let us poke holes in it for a change. Seriously, its been 5 years and there are ZERO alternate theories, why is that do you suppose? Could it be that the best one doesnt pass the laugh test?
Click to expand...
Wait, wouldn't that require...work? And analysis? And examination of competing CT claims? Nah, let's just keep making unfounded accusations on internet forums. That'll get the job done. We're this close to bringing our case to court.
 
I have one question for jessicarabbit....

How many 9/11 whistleblowers do you have now ?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Dont get angry

Stop accusing him then

Stop accusing him then


Dont get angry
Click to expand...
So you have absolutely no evidence that anyone but the 19 named hijackers were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Awesome, now we can move on.
 
Russell Pickering said:
LC and myself have made honest errors along the way.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. You cannot possibly with a straight face even suggest that the myriad of errors in the various versions of LC have been "honest errors".

There is nothing "honest" about publishing something that one knows to be false.

There is nothing "honest" about purporting to be making a BS video in "honour" of the victims of September 11, 2001, while simultaneously mocking them and laughing at them on various and sundry radio shows and interviews.

There is nothing honourable or honest about that at all. It is nothing short of despicable. This is standard fare by the tinhatters, whether they be the LC crew or the "scholars" or other "truth" seekers.

Laughing. Repeatedly. Out loud and on tape. At the victims.

Mocking. Repeatedly. Out loud and on tape.

"The people are really secondary". (LC mockumentary makers on video) "Mom, this is Mark Bingham (LU mockumentary makers on video and radio) (also raucous laughter by tinhatters at the "truth" conference), . The mocking of the passengers of Flight 93 ("I'd beat them to death with my luggage" - Fetzer, accompanied by raucous laughter by tinhatters). The mocking of the flight attendants and their fear even while they tried to do their best to communicate with the ground. (LC and the mockumentary makers on various tapes). "The firefighters were paid off" (Bermas at Ground Zero). Etc., etc., etc.

Utterly despicable. Beneath contempt.

These are the people you are aligning yourself with.

Having observed your posts here over the past couple of weeks and having engaged with you on various subjects independently, and having read the last few threads that you've been posting on repeatedly following your dramatic (non) "departure", I feel compelled to post my conclusions here.

Although you are polite when it suits your purposes, and although you are reasonably articulate, Russell, you have shown that you have serious difficulties with critical, logical and analytical reasoning, (well, okay, you have shown that such concepts are alien to you) and frankly, the bulk of your posts have become nothing more than the standard sub-par, nonsensical, ill-sourced, unfounded, typical tinhat posts that one expects from the deepest, darkest cellars of the LC forums.

I guess it is not surprising, therefore, that you align yourself with people who disparage the victims in such a cold, callous, despicable manner, and with people who are, by and large, incapable of rational, logical, critical thinking. People who cannot articulate any actual alternate theory but merely "ask questions" and ignore the answers.

That speaks volumes about you, I'm afraid.

It almost seems as though you've determined that you've found an opportunity to be a "big fish in a little pond" by appearing as "the rational one" among tinhatters. Here's a hint: it isn't exactly much of an accomplishment to be seen as slightly above retarded among retards, to use the South Park vernacular.

You really should stop and try to consider the facts and evidence instead of taking a tinhat view of the world by default. You would be amazed at what a bit of critical, rational and logical thinking could do for you if you were able to learn and exercise such skills.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
So you have absolutely no evidence that anyone but the 19 named hijackers were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Awesome, now we can move on.
Click to expand...

Stop using rule 14.

We do not have to name suspects.

If you are ever falsely imprisoned for murder I will remind you that you insiste4d you couldn't be released until someone else was convicted.
 
Gravy said:
No, fool. I agree that the USG doesn't have sufficient evidence to indict him. I take his confessions seriously, and you would be wise to do the same, but that doesn't make them admissible in court. See the difference, strawlady?
Click to expand...

Or
The evidence it has has not been presented to a grand jury, and since it already has him on the wanted list, they will wait until they have a hand on him, and then bring an indictment. Why tip your hand as to where the evidence has come from. The FBI is an investigative body, not a court, judge and jury.
 
Gravy said:
Wait, wouldn't that require...work? And analysis? And examination of competing CT claims? Nah, let's just keep making unfounded accusations on internet forums. That'll get the job done. We're this close to bringing our case to court.
Click to expand...

Why can't they just bring it to court already. I keep hearing about these eyewitnesses, whistleblowers and experts. Why won't the Cters let them say their piece in a court of law? Serious question....

For crying out loud, one of the most prominent Deniers is a millionaire!
 
jessicarabbit said:
So you agree he wasn't involved? Right we are making progress.

By the way, the irony detector has just melted when you accused me of strawmanning.
Click to expand...

Conclusion

74. The attacks of the 11 September 2001 were planned and carried out by Al Qaida, an organisation whose head is Usama Bin Laden. That organisation has the will, and the resources, to execute further attacks of similar scale. Both the United States and its close allies are targets for such attacks. The attack could not have occurred without the alliance between the Taleban and Usama Bin Laden, which allowed Bin Laden to operate freely in Afghanistan, promoting, planning and executing terrorist activity
Click to expand...
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/11/ukreport.html
1995
"The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."

1996
"What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran]when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America."

1997
"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation."
"For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places."

1998
"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...who/edicts.html

1998
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm


He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet. "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants." "Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added. Bin Laden said Moussaoui's confession -- that he helped plan the attacks -- was "void," calling it the result of "pressures exercised against him during four and a half years" in U.S. prison.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014924.html



http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM041.pdf
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-DT011.pdf
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ST001.pdf

I have summerised thes documents for you, please read them yourself.

Summary of these three documents.

Al Quada operatives trained in Afghanistan camps.
They had regular visits from Bin laden
They were encouraged to visit him.
Bin Laden Hand picked Qahtani for a “special mission in America”
The Hamburg cell trained in these camps.
Reid trained in these camps.
Reid was not part of the 9/11 plot

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf

I have summerised this document for you, please read it.

The planning.

1. He was hand picked by Bin Laden and was the Chief of External operations for Al Quada.
2. He states Moossie was not to be involved in the 9/11 attacks but for follow on attack.
3. Since Moosie was not involved in the pre planted attacks there was no concern at his arrest.
4. He met Bin laden in Afganistan, 1996 with a plan to hijack ten planes in the US and asked for funding, it was rejected by Al Quada.
5. 1999 Bin Laden changed his mind and met Mukhtar again.
6. Once the plan was approved it was referred to as the “Plane Operation”
7. Originally the plan was two fold, the 9/11 attacks and hijacking international planes over open water and simply exploding them.
8. In spring 2000 the second part was cancelled due to logistical problems.
9. Washington and New York was picked because it was easy to travel there and it was easy to get Saudi Nationals there.
10. The original “plane operation “ was to use smaller planes but this guys suggested using bigger planes like 747’s
11. The TwinTowers were selected as targets to “wake up” the American people.


Selection of targets.

1. The original plan selected the White House, The Pentagon and the USCapitalBuilding.
2. In 1990 further targets were discussed which include a nuclear reactor, The EmpireStateBuilding, The Head quarters of the FBI and the CIA and the Towers.
3. The final choice was given to Atta, the lead pilot, who was present at many of the meeting.
4. Primary targets were The Pentagon, The US Capital Building and both Towers.
5. Secondary targets included the White house and The Sears Tower.
6. Flight 93 was targeted at The CapitalBuilding.
7. Those targets not hit on 9/11 were to be carried over for the second wave of attacks which Moussaou was part of.

Deployment of hijackers.

1. Hijacker Nawaf Al-( Hazmi) was hand picked by Bin Laden
2. Hijacker Khalid al-Mihdar was hand picked by Bin Laden
3. Each was given $8000 to travel to California by guy Number one (Sheikh Mohhammed).
4. Sheikh Mohhammed, explained to them both they were to receive flight training for martyr operation. They were not told their targets.
5. Both these hijackers were chosen because they had US visas in there passports.
6. These two were indirect contact with Sheikh Mohhammed, because they could barely speak English and there were concerns they would not fit into the US ways.
7. Khalid al –Mihdar left the US to visit his wife and was nearly excluded from the 9/11 operation by number one guy but Bin Laden over ruled him and Khalid was included.

I would also like to offer up an indictment issued in 1998 against Bin laden and Al quada. This indictment is three fold.

Count one.

The named defendants, plus other members of Al Qaeda, "conspired, confederated and agreed to kill nationals of the United States
Bin Laden and others "provided training camps and guesthouses in various areas, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Kenya for the use of Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups,"
Bin Laden and others provided currency and weapons to members of Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups in various countries throughout the world

Count Two.

Defendants bin Laden, Atef, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, and Odeh, together with other members of Al Qaeda "detonated an explosive device that damaged and destroyed the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and ... directly .. caused the deaths of at least 213 persons, including Kenyan and American citizens."

Count three.

Defendants bin Laden, Atef, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Odeh, al-'Owhali. Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, together with other members of Al Qaeda "detonated an explosive device that damaged and destroyed the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and ... directly .. caused the deaths of at least 11 persons, including Tanzanian citizens

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ho/alqaeda.html
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/indict1.pdf

I can also offer up an actual transcript of Eleanor Hill, staff Director, Joint Inquiry staff on 18th September 2002.This transcript clearly shows the intelligence failings but not through any mischief or even wrong doing. What is important about it is that the finger is clearly and precisely pointed at Bin Laden and Al Quada.

The intelligence Community was engaged in numerous efforts to collect intelligence On Usama Bin Ladens network and to disrupt his operations.
Click to expand...

In September 1998, the intelligence Community obtained information that Usama Bin Laden’s next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a US airport.
Click to expand...
This quite a long document, it is 31 pages long and all be it the intelligence failing are quite clearly acknowledged, Al Quada has the finger pointed at it repeatedly.It is well worth a read.

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence...igcomm/hill.pdf

Please offer up your evidence to suggest Al Quada and UBL are not involved.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Stop using rule 14.

We do not have to name suspects.

If you are ever falsely imprisoned for murder I will remind you that you insiste4d you couldn't be released until someone else was convicted.
Click to expand...

See, now THAT is how you set up a strawman.\

"So you have absolutely no evidence that anyone but the 19 named hijackers were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?" is not equivalent to "you couldn't be released until someone else was convicted".

The evidence, called for in WildCat's post can be:
1) Evidence that someone else did it or
2) Evidence that those 19 did not do it

#2 does not necessitate naming another party, stop implying that it does.
 
Originally Posted by Russell Pickering
Gravy,

Imagine that I am the District Attorney and prove to me explosives were not used.

I have:

1) 40 some firefighter witnesses.

2) Video of squibs similar to CD.

3) 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed straight down all on the same day in the same place for the first time in history. At least one not hit by a plane.

4) Civilian eyewitnesses who reported explosions.

5) A non explanation of WTC 7 from FEMA.

P.S. Don't bring your NIST reports because they are not admissible as evidence in a court. They also failed to test for explosives even if they were.

Russell
Click to expand...


NIST report will not be admitted as evidence but,

Video of squibs similar to CD
Click to expand...

will be?


O.K. Point for point.

1) 40 some firefighter witnesses.
Click to expand...

Of course, I'd depose all 40 witnesses. I'd ask them what they meant by "the building is going to explode." I wouldn't presume what they meant as I know this would fail miserably, as evidence, in a court of law. I'd also ask them to describe the explosions. I'd ask for details such as frequency, direction and intensity. I'd also ask them what they believed the explosions to be, then inquire why they think that.


2) Video of squibs similar to CD.
Click to expand...

These would never be allowed in any trial. It would be struck down in discovery. But you shoehorned it into your scenario, so I'll address it.

I would expect expert testimony substantiating that the thrusts of smoke were from detonating explosives. I would ask the expert how he made his determination. I would then call expert witnesses countering his claims (plenty exists). The counter witnesses will not absolutely prove the nature of the thrusts of smoke, but I'd be confident it would defeat the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirement.


3) 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed straight down all on the same day in the same place for the first time in history. At least one not hit by a plane.
Click to expand...

Again, I would expect expert testimony to be given supporting why the collapses were necessarily a controlled demolition. I'd then present the copious counter testimony suggesting why it is not a controlled demolition. Neither side may be completely compelling, but, remember, the prosecution has the well-known burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


4) Civilian eyewitnesses who reported explosions.
Click to expand...

As above, I'd question these witnesses on the nature of the explosions. I'd also demand evidence that the explosions heard were necessarily from explosives.


5) A non explanation of WTC 7 from FEMA.
Click to expand...

I would inform the court that a non-explanation is evidence of nothing and suggest that the prosecution provide evidence otherwise.





Please do a review of substantive law and legal procedure. It shouldn't be too difficult, what with the internet and all.



*emphasis added.
 
Last edited:
Now guys give Jessica a break, I mean how can you be angry at a pwetty whittle bunny like her.

Your just so cute Jessica.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom