IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 litigation , april gallop , frivolous lawsuits , lawsuits

Reply
Old 8th June 2011, 06:09 PM   #521
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
The aircraft hitting the Pentagon was the first indication to the 'people at the top' and those at the Pentagon that there was an attack on the Pentagon...
Sheesh !
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 0
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:12 PM   #522
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
Do tell.
__________________

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:14 PM   #523
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


What about April's lawsuit being nonsense, delusional claptrap; any comment?

Why do they mention April's Top Secret clearance? What does that have to do with anything?
They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:16 PM   #524
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.
You mean like Bradley Manning?
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:18 PM   #525
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Do tell.
Not much of an answer.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:19 PM   #526
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
You mean like Bradley Manning?
Are you trolling?
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:22 PM   #527
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Not much of an answer.
Oh, I see. You want an answer from me. No.

I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:24 PM   #528
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Are you trolling?
It's a valid question. Manning had a security clearance and violated the trust of his employer.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:25 PM   #529
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
You have CLEARLY never been to the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the air defense artillery batteries don't exist. There's no space for them. The Pentagon has a police force to protect it; that's it. They're very competent, don't get me wrong, but explain to me exactly how you think policemen ON FOOT are supposed to protect a building from a speeding plane?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.
Yes, but in this instance her clearance had nothing to do with what she claims happened. The fact that her story has changed from one lawsuit to the next, on the other hand, does.

I have a high level clearance myself (I'd prefer not to say how high, before you ask), but trust me, that doesn't preclude me from lying. Nor does it preclude Ms. Gallop.

I am sorry for the injuries she suffered, and if she is truly being awarded a Purple Heart for what happened to her, she deserves it. But to try and exploit the events of that day for monetary gain loses her all respect in my eyes. And that is what she is doing; no more, no less.

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 06:32 PM   #530
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up.
Oh, and Clayton? Google isn't your friend.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 07:03 PM   #531
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...batteries.html
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 07:27 PM   #532
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
You have CLEARLY never been to the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the air defense artillery batteries don't exist. There's no space for them. The Pentagon has a police force to protect it; that's it. They're very competent, don't get me wrong, but explain to me exactly how you think policemen ON FOOT are supposed to protect a building from a speeding plane?
Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 07:29 PM   #533
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?
Keep on making sense, and someday you'll get promoted to 000064 sir
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2011, 11:36 PM   #534
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,714
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments
I suggest you turn this question into a statement or claim:
CM: "the Pentagon was prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack (in particular, attack with speeding airplanes)"
and then elaborate
  • what kinds of attack was the Pentagomn prepared to protect itself from? List specific kinds!
  • For each kind of attack, explain the methods and devices used to protect against it
  • For each method and device used to protect the Pentagon, point us ti evidence that in fact it was installed at/for the Pentagon


I highlighted one word, because you are always a little short on that.

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content and response to same
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 05:27 AM   #535
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Shame on you Oystein for trying to make CM deviate from his delightful argument from simple incredulity debate tactic; it's just not fair.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 05:42 AM   #536
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.
You don't know much about security clearances
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 05:46 AM   #537
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

The Pentagon pre 9-11 was essentially a very large office building. regularly open for tours. Even the CIA building had tours on occasion.

(And then there is that little complex called Reagan International Airport about a mile away that troofers always forget. One of the runway's landing pattern is right over the Pentagon.)

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 05:53 AM   #538
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
You don't know much about security clearances
This shocks you?
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 08:16 AM   #539
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
I missed this thread the first time around so forgive my ignorance.

I assume the sanctions came about as a result of Rule 11 and Rule 12(b)(6).

Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states:

Quote:
Rule 38. Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs

If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

The court raised the matter of sanctions nostra sponte (on their own motion for those of you who don't want to look up the Latin) citing Rule 38 as well as their inherent jurisdiction to do so.


Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
In light of the parts I've bolded, do you think it would be "reasonable" to charge a client for failing that badly?

Let me be put this in perspective: Judges rarely sanction people. If they do, you have probably ********** up in a spectacular way. Any attempt to pass that onto the client is flat out unethical and should get you disbarred.

Disbarment aside, if a lawyer tried to charge me for his sanction, I'd sue him for breach of contract. His sanctions are not a service and I'm not paying for them.

In this case, the court specifically decided that if Gallop and her lawyers cannot show cause why they shouldn't have to pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15k, then they will be jointly and severally liable for payment of same. They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken".

That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 08:42 AM   #540
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
How fitting. I point out that April Gallop is about to face a real-world hardship for fighting for what YOU believe in, and your first response is puke up yet another old, lame Truther meme. On the Internet.

You're not the sort I'd want to share a foxhole with, I can tell you that.

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 08:52 AM   #541
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
It would appear not.

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 10:38 AM   #542
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,714
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
...
(And then there is that little complex called Reagan International Airport about a mile away that troofers always forget. One of the runway's landing pattern is right over the Pentagon.)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...55747&t=h&z=15

A flight path to/from Runway 15 of Reagan National misses the north-east face of the Pentagon by just a few dozend yards.

It's 0.8 miles from the end of runway 15 to the easternmost corner of the Pentagon. A 757 that has a take-off speed of 160mph would get there in less than 18 seconds.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 11:56 AM   #543
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?
When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land.
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 02:15 PM   #544
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
Okay. How?
Considering there's an commercial airfield next door.
And roadways virtually all round the Pentagon.
How do you stop a 500 knot airliner aimed at you ?
Or a truck bomb being driven at you ?

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 02:28 PM   #545
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
Okay. How?
Considering there's an commercial airfield next door.
And roadways virtually all round the Pentagon.
How do you stop a 500 knot airliner aimed at you ?
Or a truck bomb being driven at you ?
Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly".









__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 03:09 PM   #546
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states:
That works too.

Quote:
That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway?
Then Gallop can sue for malpractice.

On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers.
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 03:20 PM   #547
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
The lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.
It should be noted that the primary lawyer, William Veale, is all over the Internet as a "lawyer for 9-11 Truth." I don't think we can assume this was all Gallop's idea.
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2011, 04:56 PM   #548
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure...
Thanks LashL. My limited knowledge of US law takes another small step forward.

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
...They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken"...
Oops. I misread that "joint and several" as meaning the various lawyers - not lawyers and client. I must be out of practice.
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
...That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway?
Which was the point I raised some time back leading to...
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
...The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.
..which naturally follows.

Thanks again.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 07:42 AM   #549
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
we flew almost over the Pentagon
<snip>

I'm helping Craig and Aldo out. The above ought to be good for at least another two CD sales. Debunker admits to almost fly over!!!
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 02:32 PM   #550
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Oh, I missed something on PACER earlier; Gallop's lawyers asked for an extension of time to show cause why sanctions shouldn't be imposed against them and the court extended the time to July 11 for them to respond to the court's order to show cause.

But the more entertaining bit is this: Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing. I haven't finished reading it yet but just the first few pages are enough to make me wonder how any of the three lawyers with their names on this will come through this without even more sanctions or further action against them.

I'll post the document up later tonight after I've finished reading it.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 03:14 PM   #551
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Gallop did what? Are her lawyers trying to get themselves disbarred?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 06:21 PM   #552
Myron Proudfoot
Master Poster
 
Myron Proudfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land.

I live in northern Va so I've flown over the Pentagon from DCA many times, and even over CIA HQs in McLean. And DCA is known as the favorite of members of Congress flying back and forth from home. The idea that the Pentagon had anti-aircraft missiles ready and able to fire on 9/11 is, IMHO, one of the twoofers more stupid ideas..
__________________
InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook)
Myron Proudfoot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 07:25 PM   #553
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,774
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
But the more entertaining bit is this: Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing.


After the verbal beat-down the court just gave them? I've never underestimated the ignorance of truthers, but this is definitely worthy of a Lifetime Stundie Achievement AwardTM.

I wonder how the court will react to that. Should be high comedy.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 08:55 PM   #554
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Can they say the word "dumbass" in a ruling? If so, it should be included.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2011, 09:02 PM   #555
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
If they had used AK-47s and RPGs, even a T-72, they wouldn't have been very successful.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2011, 02:34 AM   #556
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers.
I think somebody needs to take her by the hand and lead her to an attorney who specialises in suing people who take advantage of the mentally ill.

Slam-dunk, she gets her money back and her shysters pay the sanctions out of their own pockets.

She suffers PTSD and the drongos took advantage of that fact to convince her of an absurd and delusional cause.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2011, 02:54 AM   #557
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments


You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?
pathetic appeal to magic, argument from ignorance and incredulity.

provide any proof that it was "prepared to protect itself." Feel free.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

Last edited by kmortis; 17th June 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2011, 02:05 PM   #558
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly".





The conspiracy kooks just might believe that
Of course as there are daily 1200 or so aircraft movements through the area you'd also need psychologists and profilers and any other 'art' practitioners....
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2011, 02:28 PM   #559
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Sorry, I got very busy last night with really important stuff the Stanley Cup final and didn't get this latest piece-o-crap uploaded, etc.

I don't think I have ever seen a pleading this rude and insulting to the judiciary. I don't think it's going to go over very well.

Enjoy!
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2011, 02:53 PM   #560
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Uh oh...
Quote:
Grounds are that the Panel overlooked, misapprehended and indeed scorned, without comprehending, or even minimally attending to, the vast bulk of the facts alleged in the appeal and the underlying complaint...
Lash: Wanna make some Legaltaining predictions on what the court's gonna do with that statement?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.