ISF Logo   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.
Reply
Old 5th May 2017, 05:29 PM   #81
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Citation please.
September 6, 2001: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/...ee9342383.html

Quote:
The order to gradually close down the base to public access has been controversial this summer. Most of the moaning has come from civilians who don''t want their reliable short-cut cut. Politicians jumped in, complaining that the closure will endanger commerce.
September 12, 2001: http://www.montereyherald.com/articl...NEWS/110908646

Quote:
Then-Commandant Col. Kevin Rice announced in August 2001 that the gates would be closed beginning Sept. 1 to all but authorized vehicles from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
May, 2001, CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/09/army.base.security/

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Army bases across the United States will be increasing security this summer in response to the "increased threat of terrorism," army officials told CNN Wednesday.
June 28, 2001, House Armed Services Committee, Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...s179240_0f.htm

Lots of discussion on adding perimeter fencing, guards, etc.

9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 8:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/r...Report_Ch8.htm

Quote:
On July 18, 2001, the State Department provided a warning to the public regarding possible terrorist attacks in the Arabian Peninsula.26
Quote:
n July 31, an FAA circular appeared alerting the aviation community to "reports of possible near-term terrorist operations . . . particularly on the Arabian Peninsula and/or Israel." It stated that the FAA had no credible evidence of specific plans to attack U.S. civil aviation, though it noted that some of the "currently active" terrorist groups were known to "plan and train for hijackings" and were able to build and conceal sophisticated explosive devices in luggage and consumer products.29
Then there is this gem from CNN dated September 19, 2002 discussing Congressional committee intelligence reports:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT...ence.hearings/

My favorite one confirms everything we've been saying:

Quote:
n 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said.

"The FBI's New York office took no action on the information," it said.
That enough?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 5th May 2017, 05:58 PM   #82
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,403
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
September 6, 2001: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/...ee9342383.html



September 12, 2001: http://www.montereyherald.com/articl...NEWS/110908646



May, 2001, CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/09/army.base.security/



June 28, 2001, House Armed Services Committee, Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...s179240_0f.htm

Lots of discussion on adding perimeter fencing, guards, etc.

9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 8:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/r...Report_Ch8.htm





Then there is this gem from CNN dated September 19, 2002 discussing Congressional committee intelligence reports:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT...ence.hearings/

My favorite one confirms everything we've been saying:



That enough?
You said "close their bases to public access"
Quote:
"You can still get on if you have a reason for being there," said one army officer familiar with the policy.

He said the new policy of "restricting access" is simply intended to provide a more secure environment for soldiers and their families, many of whom live on bases. In addition to reducing the threat of terrorist attack, the steps are also expected to reduce crime on installations and provide a more controlled environment by essentially creating a gated community.

The other military services already require that visitors check in at base entrances and explain their business before being admitted.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 5th May 2017, 06:43 PM   #83
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
How it worked out (around here) is that the public was funneled through a single gate, and you have make arrangements in advance to get inside. In the past you could just drive right in with nobody knowing you were there.

At the Naval Postgraduate School I can't get in to visit the library without written permission. (NPS has a great library).

The big difference was that everyone got a closer look in 2001 than they had before, and this was in response to a perceived, growing threat. It may have just been coincidence, but the military was forced to spend money on something other than weapons projects, and that is an anomaly.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 5th May 2017, 06:49 PM   #84
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,403
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
How it worked out (around here) is that the public was funneled through a single gate, and you have make arrangements in advance to get inside. In the past you could just drive right in with nobody knowing you were there.

At the Naval Postgraduate School I can't get in to visit the library without written permission. (NPS has a great library).

The big difference was that everyone got a closer look in 2001 than they had before, and this was in response to a perceived, growing threat. It may have just been coincidence, but the military was forced to spend money on something other than weapons projects, and that is an anomaly.
The significance of the anomaly is the question. The public was still granted access to the bases. From my recollection of Great Lakes at the time, there was no seriously significant increase in base security before 9/11. Nothing that indicated an imminent threat, at least. After 9/11 was completely different - the base was on lockdown - and most of my reserve unit was recalled to assist with security, because base security wasn't adequately staffed for the increased posture.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 5th May 2017, 07:12 PM   #85
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,653
Access to bases changes from time to time, what it the relation to 9/11; none. No matter how much we prepare, we might not be able to stop a surprise attack. When we spent millions to fortify gates after, it is not wasted, it can stop or make attacks difficult, but can't stop all the possible plots.

When we were TDY years before 9/11, we were warned about possible attacks against US people/military, but those intel assessments were not related to UBL, yet it was no secret UBL promised to kill American when and where he could.

The security related to bases, the changing policies found in the press, how is that related to 9/11; most likely on to make up some news stories. It is not logical that changing security access to bases prior to 9/11 has standing for or against claims for 9/11 truth.

What would be interesting, a list of all threats from the intel world before 9/11, like the ones I received when I was TDY, or during intel briefings. The changing security at a few based prior to 9/11? At my base security changed from time to time, but not leading up to 9/11, there was no significant changes ...

Who could imagine finding 19 idiots dumb enough to kill themselves, yet we find 9/11 truth followers, a fringe few who are dumber than 19 nuts and dolts for UBL.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 5th May 2017, 08:50 PM   #86
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
You before you got called out on not knowing the information sharing protocols:



You after you got called out for not knowing the information sharing protocols:




And you are still way, way off on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Have you ever even read a single piece of case law dealing with this provision before? It's not like there is a lack of them. Maybe time to accept that your internet law degree isn't worth much. Don't take my word for it, read the US attorney's manual starting here: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...nt-18-usc-1001

You aren't going to get anywhere with 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) in your argument unless you first define the scope of the agents's duties to the federal government in the circumstances at issue. If there even are such duties in the context of your argument, they are the information sharing protocols you want to now ignore. And the reason you will not get anywhere with those protocols is, as Axxman300 points out, you will not be able to actually find information sharing protocols that were violated by the persons you name in a way that would trigger a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action. Part of that is you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as, again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) was written to criminalize individuals lying to federal governmental agencies in matters that implicate such individuals or their associates; it is not applicable to mistakes, oversights, failures, or even plain stupidity by federal investigators.

So, again, what were the information sharing protocols you think were violated in a way that triggers a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action??
Here is a description of Subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for your edification. If this does not make it clear to you nothing will.

Quote:
HOW TO AVOID GOING TO JAIL UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1001 FOR LYING TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS
By Solomon L. Wisenberg

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Ms. Stewart now stands convicted of intentionally misleading SEC and FBI officials who questioned her about insider trading. Mr. Al-Marri was one of several hundred immigrants who voluntarily submitted to FBI interviews in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was later charged with lying, during his interview, about the timing of a previous trip to the United States. Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to trim for rule 4, add quotes around copypasta, and to add link: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigat...for-lying.html

Please do not post large amounts of material available elsewhere on the internet, but post a short extract (one or two paragraphs), enclose the material in quote tags and provide a link.

Last edited by Agatha; 6th May 2017 at 04:04 AM.
paloalto 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 6th May 2017, 11:21 AM   #87
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The significance of the anomaly is the question. The public was still granted access to the bases. From my recollection of Great Lakes at the time, there was no seriously significant increase in base security before 9/11. Nothing that indicated an imminent threat, at least. After 9/11 was completely different - the base was on lockdown - and most of my reserve unit was recalled to assist with security, because base security wasn't adequately staffed for the increased posture.
It was a big deal out here.

The Defense Language Institute separates Pacific Grove from downtown Monterey, and had been a beloved short-cut for locals since the base was built. When the Army announced they were closing access to the base the city held meetings about it, and terrorism was the Army's mantra. I'd visit the NPS library on Sundays, so losing access was a bummer. The Navy built a serious wall too.

These installations are academic in nature. In the 1980s, when we'd go to Fort Ord, we would be stopped at the gate, directed to a small office where we had to register our vehicle, and receive a day pass that we taped to the inside of the windshield. Fort Ord was home to the 7thID, a combat unit, and had different security protocols. I haven't been down to Hunter-Liggett in years, but there is a county road that cuts through the base, so I'm not sure how that all works today.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 6th May 2017, 12:27 PM   #88
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,403
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It was a big deal out here.

The Defense Language Institute separates Pacific Grove from downtown Monterey, and had been a beloved short-cut for locals since the base was built. When the Army announced they were closing access to the base the city held meetings about it, and terrorism was the Army's mantra. I'd visit the NPS library on Sundays, so losing access was a bummer. The Navy built a serious wall too.

These installations are academic in nature. In the 1980s, when we'd go to Fort Ord, we would be stopped at the gate, directed to a small office where we had to register our vehicle, and receive a day pass that we taped to the inside of the windshield. Fort Ord was home to the 7thID, a combat unit, and had different security protocols. I haven't been down to Hunter-Liggett in years, but there is a county road that cuts through the base, so I'm not sure how that all works today.
Yes, so any increase in defense posture was more ad hoc, not universal and not strong. In other words, the DOD did not act as if there was a strong and imminent threat based on solid actionable intelligence.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 7th May 2017, 01:07 AM   #89
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Here is a description of Subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for your edification. If this does not make it clear to you nothing will.
What's clear to me is that you have just proved benthamitemetric's point.
Well done. Can we move on now?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 7th May 2017, 01:12 AM   #90
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
What's clear to me is that you have just proved benthamitemetric's point.
Well done. Can we move on now?
Far from it, as I posted before:

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.
paloalto 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 7th May 2017, 04:27 AM   #91
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Here's my takeaway.... the FBI was often forced to rely on intelligence techniques and methods that were inherently illegal and therefore they 'could not' know about them. Regrettably, they also needed said techniques to do their job effectively. This was "the wall" that has been spun into some sort of mythological beast which prevented the FBI from effectively doing their jobs. If anything, at the time, the wall allowed the FBI to do their jobs, legally.
^
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Wow, not one thing you said here was or is now true.
I'll revise my takeaway... "the FBI could have had a much easier time apprehending and prosecuting enemies, foreign and domestic, if it was able to use information gained through intelligence techniques and methods that were inherently illegal at the time. As paloalto alludes to elsewhere in this thread, the FBI had to be very careful about what kinds of information might find its way into a courtroom. The Justice Department's "wall" was a policy to help firewall incoming data so that evidence collected by illegal means wouldn't sabotage legitimate criminal investigations. The inability of the FBI, NSA, and CIA to easily access all sources of data within the exponentially growing digital realm hindered their respective abilities to adequately study and intercept our enemies, 9/11 being almost a perfect example. We have to qualify this as 'almost' because as paloalto has also pointed out extensively, the CIA had information obtained in legal methods which it could have shared with the FBI regarding a criminal act which had occurred. They chose to not pass that information along. The meme of Gorelick's "wall" has been used to imply that it was perhaps the FBI who contributed to the disconnect in communication between the two Agencies, but the fact is the CIA chose not to share vital intelligence which would have alerted any competent investigator within the DoJ to the presence of specific Al Qaeda threats within CONUS, perhaps due to to an unknown internal protocol or directive, but in violation of Federal Law nonetheless."

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
An operation such as a false flag like 9/11 was needed to facilitate an environment in which enough 'rules' could change that we would be poised to win in the 21st century against evil. You all KNOW this. In the face of the Bojinka plot, a plan was hatched within the executive branch to bring down the towers concurrently with a terror attack by jihadis.
^
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No I don't know this. Things were good in 2001, we'd paid down the debt, the tech-bubble had burst but tech was still going strong, and in general the country was in healthy shape.
The cited economic atmosphere's relevance is short sighted. The wars of the future were to be fought in the information domain as well as the kinetic. Only absolute control of data would enable the US and our allies to maintain advantage in the information realm. Relying on laws like CALEA and antiquated harvesting of POTS data would not be sufficient. Systems to fully mirror the broadband data lines aggregating a country's digital information needed to be deployed. The sort of systems that were installed in the Verizon building immediately after the industrial 'damage' on 9/11/2001 and later in the ATT switching rooms in California. The acquisition of data, the world's most valuable resource, was a tremendously fortuitous benefit of the 2001 terror attacks. It's my conjecture here that the LIHOP was authorized to garner such data.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
In the face of the Bojinka plot, a plan was hatched within the executive branch to bring down the towers concurrently with a terror attack by jihadis.
^
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Proof? Oh that's right, there ain't none. Plus, if you knew anything about the executive branch and the tenets of the World Trade Center you might grasp how ridiculous this idea really is. Had they picked a different target, a BETTER target like a nuclear power plant, you might have something to go on, but targeting bond traders and high end lawyers is always a bad idea for any politician or deep-stater.
LIHOP vs MIHOP.... some people let it happen, and others made it happen. They don't have to be the same people. The targeting of the WTC was a consequence of the terrorist's attack plans. Had they targeted the Sear's Tower, then that would have also been rigged to cleanly and relatively safely collapse into its footprint. It would be much better to have the building fall into its own basement than topple over like a domino to crush untold numbers of additional people. As you must be aware there are quite a few theories about why the WTC complex's destruction, including WTC7, was beneficial to certain investors.
It's entirely possible that the agents who LIHOP'd did not know about the Northwood's plane swap, and that those people didn't know about the nanothermite, strike team at Pentagon, etc, etc.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
They knew something was up, so did the FBI, so did a couple of French news agencies, and we can't forget the DoD knew back in May, 2001 that something was coming because they closed all military bases to civilian traffic.
A friend of mine who has flown as a stewardess for United for 30+ years told me that in the year preceding the attacks they were doing extensive training drills on their international aircraft because they had been alerted to specific threats of hijacking.

We saw a foiled terror attack at the turn of the millennium.

And we knew UBL was "number one bad guy" but CNN was somehow able to just waltz right into his cave and interview him and nobody Stateside had a problem with that? Lots of specific threat information.... lot's of concurrent planning.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The CIA had both the airfields and the airplanes.
^
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Really, where? I know they have a pair in Nevada, and share one with the USAF in Arizona. I will need to see the bill of sale for 4 767s, and the CIA inventory of said aircraft before 9-11-2001, and immediately afterward. If the planes are missing you might be onto something, but you still have to account for the missing AA,United planes, and we know those crashed into Manhattan, Shanksville, and DC.
Wasn't it Phillip Marshall who claimed the impact jets were modified in Arizona? There are and were a lot of old aircraft in that graveyard. "In Plane Sight" shows that both AA11 and UA175 flew over Stewart Airbase. ACARS tracks UA175 all the way toward Cleveland. So a modified impact jet hit the South tower, did the original UA175 end up back in the original frankenstein pile? Maybe. For the record, I'm inclined to think Atta flew AA11 into WTC1 per the official account, UA93 was shot down over Shanksville, and AA77 was diverted to Reagan.

I don't know where AA77 is now, but I'm terribly sure it didn't turn into a "slurry" which made the C-ring exit hole. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. It won't stand up to the ages. Can we make a better myth please?

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You understand that this is treason that ends up with everyone involved strapped to a table when they get caught.
I know it's sad, but they did contribute to the death of approx. 3000 people at home, hundreds of thousands abroad, and the irrevocable destruction of our Nation's Constitution and integrity. If you can delay the inevitable for a life cycle or two, they'll just get spit on their graves instead.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Nope, the biologics were traced to the US Army, and the Patriot Act was going to happen anyway.
I agree with you about the Army. It is what it is. The spores were traced to the Ames strain, but Ft Detrick was not the only possessor of Ames strain product. For example, Battelle had the ability, domestically, to encapsulate the spores in silica, thereby highly weaponizing them. Ft Detrick, and consequently Bruce Ivins, did not.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Means? Not really. Motive? Have met anyone who works at CIA on any level?
Would I know if I did?

You're right. It's unfair to levy all this blame principally upon an Agency which undoubtedly has tens of thousand of heroes within, so for those listening, I recognize that and hope others do to. Factions.... of people from various branches and various Agencies could get together in a room and agree on a lot. The means were certainly shared.

I got wound up in this thread because I don't think it's a fair assessment to blame the FBI or DoJ for anything related to 9/11 occurring. Now, did political players within the DoJ prevent a real investigation from occurring after the attacks? Absolutely.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Tacos?
Yes, will you buy? I need about $300k to maintain a solid distraction on art projects and investment portfolios and I'm not there yet.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The CIA NEEDS help.
^
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Why? You just described them as having super powers and unlimited resources, but somehow they still need help?
They should have a small team of serious skeptics to analyze their ops and find faults before they fly alleged 767-200's at 540mph at 1000'. Literally billions of dollars and they can't get simple details right... it's fundamentally pathetic and a consequence of zero oversight, a perfect example of Government waste. Were the idiots who authorized 10 stories of WTC1 destroying the remaining structure drawn and quartered? Counseled? or Kudoed? Your answer to that question will reveal the problem. We can't pay somebody to do this? How much is being spent to convince the masses that people who believe in science and logic are nuts? How stupid is that???

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The CIA is not SEARS. They do have accountability, even though they don't seem to get punished too often.
They're both bankrupt, one fiscally, and the other principally.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
16 years, dude, when's the big day? Who's doing the investigating right now?
I think it'll come from the Universities, and maybe not in my lifetime. With my interest in this topic.... that's increasingly probable


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Look, Scooter, nobody thinks we're winning anything. Just killing people who need killing and want to die for their god. It's the same as taking out the trash, there's always more trash.
I don't object to the security. When allowed to do it, we mop up jihadis quite well, and that is winning something. Did the Christians who died because of the proxy war festering ISIS stain die for their God?

I was originally referring to winning 'an argument here' or 'an article there'. The Info War.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
We've won a lot of battles, the only lie is that 9-11 was an inside job. The worst thing about 9-11 Truth is that it has kept battlefield stocked with confused young men who have been tricked into believing this lie.
It's just common sense man. Most of my generation could tell JFK was also shot from the front. We do grow out of the Santa Clause phase eventually you know....

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
9/11 Truth are the true murderers in this game.
Oh come on... that's like blaming the cops when you get caught.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Your talking about a plan to fake an attack on the US to lead us into TWO wars, but without framing anyone from either country. Then the Amazing CIA forgets to stage chemical weapons in Iraq for our troops and press to "find".
I'm talking about a plan to seize control of the United States with an executed COG, the acquisition of all available information in the digital domain and ability to garner it in the physical, the opportunity to suppress our enemies without revealing sources and methods in public courts, and the distraction of imperial wars for strategic territory and resources. And didn't Valerie Plame thwart the staging you suggest should have occurred?


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
So you must be the lone person not to own a smart phone or a computer (but you'd need one to post here). The phone companies, Google, Facebook and Apple have more data on a vast chunk of the human race right now. More than the CIA, NSA, and NRO could ever hope to process. This was done without firing a shot. In fact, most of us lined up to surrender our personal data to these and other corporations.
Totally, which is why the stupid and senseless blemish on our heritage which is 9/11 is so additionally jacked up. We could have been much more discreet and ended up in the same place.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
War is counter productive to this process.
I agree, but unless we address the reality of false flag tactics, we will be drawn into other people's conflicts again, and again, and again. This is one reason why 9/11 truth is productive.
Notconvinced 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 7th May 2017, 06:20 AM   #92
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
You before you got called out on not knowing the information sharing protocols:



You after you got called out for not knowing the information sharing protocols:




And you are still way, way off on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Have you ever even read a single piece of case law dealing with this provision before? It's not like there is a lack of them. Maybe time to accept that your internet law degree isn't worth much. Don't take my word for it, read the US attorney's manual starting here: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...nt-18-usc-1001

You aren't going to get anywhere with 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) in your argument unless you first define the scope of the agents's duties to the federal government in the circumstances at issue. If there even are such duties in the context of your argument, they are the information sharing protocols you want to now ignore. And the reason you will not get anywhere with those protocols is, as Axxman300 points out, you will not be able to actually find information sharing protocols that were violated by the persons you name in a way that would trigger a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action. Part of that is you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as, again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) was written to criminalize individuals lying to federal governmental agencies in matters that implicate such individuals or their associates; it is not applicable to mistakes, oversights, failures, or even plain stupidity by federal investigators.

So, again, what were the information sharing protocols you think were violated in a way that triggers a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action??
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Here is a description of Subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for your edification. If this does not make it clear to you nothing will.
Quote:
Quote:
HOW TO AVOID GOING TO JAIL UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1001 FOR LYING TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS
By Solomon L. Wisenberg

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Ms. Stewart now stands convicted of intentionally misleading SEC and FBI officials who questioned her about insider trading. Mr. Al-Marri was one of several hundred immigrants who voluntarily submitted to FBI interviews in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was later charged with lying, during his interview, about the timing of a previous trip to the United States. Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
What's clear to me is that you have just proved benthamitemetric's point.
Well done. Can we move on now?
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Far from it, as I posted before:

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.
Lest the highlighted not be clear enough for you, allow me to quote this:
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric
BTW, do you really not understand that 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is applicable to those under investigation by the federal government, not those conducting the investigation?
The copypasta you posted confirms what benthamitemetric was saying, and disproves your own point.
As I say, well done.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 7th May 2017, 08:27 AM   #93
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,653
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
...
I agree, but unless we address the reality of false flag tactics, we will be drawn into other people's conflicts again, and again, and again. This is one reason why 9/11 truth is productive.
There was no false flag, but this is the place to make wild claims based on made up nonsense. No buildings were rigged to come down in their own foot print, that is pure 9/11 truth dumber than dirt tag line regurgitation. 9/11 truth has fooled you with taglines of woo.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
... then that would have also been rigged to cleanly and relatively safely collapse into its footprint. It would be much better to have the building fall into its own basement than topple over like a domino to crush untold numbers of additional people. As you must be aware there are quite a few theories about why the WTC complex's destruction, including WTC7, was beneficial to certain investors.
Wow, then to the gish gallop goes into faster than freefall...
Quote:
Wasn't it Phillip Marshall who claimed the impact jets were modified in Arizona?
How many different camps of 9/11 truth have fooled you. Marshall is not a CD guy, so you need to decide which lies and fantasies you are set on. You just debunked yourself with BS from multiple camps of BS 9/11 truth lies and nonsesne.

Wow, ACARS, really, you don't have clue how ACARS works so you adopt the fanasy of Balsamo the failed pilot who never flew left seat commericial airlines.
Wow, add you know someone in the airlines...

The fact is Mark Rossini is upset he missed figuring out the secret plot... The plot was not MIHOP, or LIHOP, it was UBL and his fellow failed murderers who figured out there was a way they could buy and hour or two by faking hijacking aircraft, which is what the 19 murderers were doing, faking a hijacking and they went right to the unsecure cockpits and killed the pilots. 9/11 truth can't comprehend why faking a hijacking turned into 9/11.

It would take some thought exercise to see the loophole of how we treat hijackings ( a slow and draw out negotiation) and how we can't imagine 19 suicide nuts taking four planes and murdering thousands. We have read books where an upset man who owns a large jet rams the Capitol building killing the president and others... but can you imagine a nut taking his car and kill us in a crowd on purpose... how do you stop it.

Rossini and others look back and think they could stop it. We might do the same after an accident, or a robbery, or some event.

Your post contains so much nonsense which you adopted from 9/11 truth liars;
Maybe you should read the OP...

[quote=cjnewson88;11224959]This was posted this morning. Pretty much just another view point of the information we already know is likely to be true. I'll post the link below as well as the full article in the spoiler.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.co.n...gent-mark.html

Leave out all the fantasy nonsense already debunked 15 years ago. The ACARS is funny, planes still up after they crashed, or your modified plane theory, using old planes, retired planes to do what line jets can't? Really... Spend millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to modify planes, leaving a trail of money even the FBI can't miss. Do 9/11 truth liars think before making up lies dumber dirt?

Read about the topic, drop the fantasy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59&postcount=1
Phillip Marshall? He wrote books to make money, and filled them with BS. \


Quote:
A colleague of mine who was with me at the CIA, Special Agent Doug Miller, wrote a draft Central Intelligence Report, known also as a CIR, which is the only official way information is transferred between the agencies, to tell the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia and about these individuals that were there, and the CIA blocked it. To this day no one has ever been held accountable for blocking Doug’s memo from going or for telling me I couldn’t tell the FBI about what Doug tried to send.
Rossini looks back and says they blocked something, but how can he know then it was the key. And if he did think it was a key why did he fail to pass it on anyway. When I worked a project, when I found something I followed up, and if there was a block, I went around it, and made sure the right people knew. Easy to look back and see what you could have stopped, the trouble is at the time you had no clue what you were going to stop if you had a clue.

You would be looking for thermite in the Sears building... lol - a Quixotic quest of woo - but you would not find any, and that is not enough to stop 9/11 truth from making up insane claims based on nothing.

I missed it, where did the OP imply your gish gallop of woo from, false flag, PNAC, bring down the towers, LIHOP, MIHOP, its footprint, Northwoods, pane swap, strike team, Phillip Marshall, modified jets, ACARS, shot down 93, and the icing on the woo cake, JFK shot from the front. (all debunked, BTW)
The fantasy world of 9/11 truth survives with fresh paranoid conspiracy theorists, who if they have critical thinking skills, quickly solve 911 truth is a movement of lies based on the ignorance of the believers - knowledge, education and some reality based research skills cure those who fall for the lies of 9/11 truth. ACARS was funny, and the footprint, modified planes are as far out there as the JFK frontal attack fantasy. Is Bigfoot real.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 7th May 2017, 03:23 PM   #94
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Lest the highlighted not be clear enough for you, allow me to quote this:


The copypasta you posted confirms what benthamitemetric was saying, and disproves your own point.
As I say, well done.
Hardly, the highlighted text is the posters obvious and uniformed opinion.

The only exemptions to this statute are:

Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

There is no exemption if you are a federal investigator. Your statement is patently false when it comes to intentionally lying,

Your opinion on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) that it was written to criminalize individuals lying to federal governmental agencies in matters that implicate such individuals or their associates; and it is not applicable to federal investigators is completely false, except for the exceptions I had noted above. The following defines a crime, if you commit the acts listed below, you have committed a crime and you are a criminal regardless if you are a Federal investigator or not a Federal investigator:

Anyone who knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony.

Obviously this does not cover unintentional oversights, unintentional failures, unintentional mistakes or just plain stupidity.
paloalto 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 7th May 2017, 04:19 PM   #95
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,203
Assuming, by hypothesis, that someone violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), who would prosecute it?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 7th May 2017, 04:55 PM   #96
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
^


I'll revise my takeaway... "the FBI could have had a much easier time apprehending and prosecuting enemies, foreign and domestic, if it was able to use information gained through intelligence techniques and methods that were inherently illegal at the time. As paloalto alludes to elsewhere in this thread, the FBI had to be very careful about what kinds of information might find its way into a courtroom. The Justice Department's "wall" was a policy to help firewall incoming data so that evidence collected by illegal means wouldn't sabotage legitimate criminal investigations. The inability of the FBI, NSA, and CIA to easily access all sources of data within the exponentially growing digital realm hindered their respective abilities to adequately study and intercept our enemies, 9/11 being almost a perfect example. We have to qualify this as 'almost' because as paloalto has also pointed out extensively, the CIA had information obtained in legal methods which it could have shared with the FBI regarding a criminal act which had occurred. They chose to not pass that information along. The meme of Gorelick's "wall" has been used to imply that it was perhaps the FBI who contributed to the disconnect in communication between the two Agencies, but the fact is the CIA chose not to share vital intelligence which would have alerted any competent investigator within the DoJ to the presence of specific Al Qaeda threats within CONUS, perhaps due to to an unknown internal protocol or directive, but in violation of Federal Law nonetheless."
How the US Government works:

CIA spies overseas.

FBI spies/investigates in CONUS, and in limited cases overseas.

CUSTOMS are the folks at the airports who check incoming alien passports against a watch-list, and log all foreigner entries into one or more databases which ( I think) the FBI can query.

NONE of the 9/11 hijackers slipped ashore from a submarine, parachuted, or crossed the border in the dead of night. They ALL came in through the front door. The FBI never needed the CIA's help or intel, plus the FBI ignored the itel that was passed along to them.

All of this was against the backdrop of Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the CIA's Alrich Ames mess which had everyone at both agencies looking over their shoulders.

Quote:
The cited economic atmosphere's relevance is short sighted.
Not if you understand economics.

Quote:
The wars of the future were to be fought in the information domain as well as the kinetic.
And?

Quote:
Only absolute control of data would enable the US and our allies to maintain advantage in the information realm. Relying on laws like CALEA and antiquated harvesting of POTS data would not be sufficient. Systems to fully mirror the broadband data lines aggregating a country's digital information needed to be deployed.
Out here in California we call this "Google", and "Facebook".

Quote:
The acquisition of data, the world's most valuable resource, was a tremendously fortuitous benefit of the 2001 terror attacks. It's my conjecture here that the LIHOP was authorized to garner such data.
As opposed to just buying this data under a CIA/FBI shell company without attracting attention or flattening Manhattan? You don't understand sneaky.

Quote:
LIHOP vs MIHOP.... some people let it happen, and others made it happen. They don't have to be the same people
You need to get out more.

Quote:
The targeting of the WTC was a consequence of the terrorist's attack plans. Had they targeted the Sear's Tower, then that would have also been rigged to cleanly and relatively safely collapse into its footprint. It would be much better to have the building fall into its own basement than topple over like a domino to crush untold numbers of additional people. As you must be aware there are quite a few theories about why the WTC complex's destruction, including WTC7, was beneficial to certain investors.
Everything you said here is a proven lie. Here's why:

No buildings were rigged with explosives on 9/11. There is no/zero/nada evidence of their use.

The point of terror is to terrorize. Once you've committed to Murder One, you might as well kill as many people as possible. The misguided concept that the damage was somehow limited is foolish, plus - do the math, if you believe 9/11 was a false flag operation then why stop at 3,000 dead when 10,000, or 50,000 would open every door to those behind the deed?

Your economic angle has a flaw - Cantor Fitzgerald. Nobody messes with a multi-billion dollar bond trader. They have powerful friends and your conspiracy would be revealed within days because that's how the real world works.

Quote:
As you must be aware there are quite a few theories about why the WTC complex's destruction, including WTC7, was beneficial to certain investors.
Yes, and you must be aware that the word "Investors" is code for "Jews".
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 7th May 2017, 05:52 PM   #97
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
...
Yes, and you must be aware that the word "Investors" is code for "Jews".
To get a feel for how rabidly and weirdly Notconvinced is immersed in old-fashioned anti-semitism, review this analysis of some of the ugly dreck he conceived in his anti-semitic brain elsewhere. Check out the discussion which preceded and followed that post
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 7th May 2017, 05:58 PM   #98
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
And we knew UBL was "number one bad guy" but CNN was somehow able to just waltz right into his cave and interview him and nobody Stateside had a problem with that? Lots of specific threat information.... lot's of concurrent planning.
Waltzed?

Blindfolded, tossed into the back of an SUV and driven to an undisclosed location, searched, and had AKs pointed at them the entire time.

This was 1997.

Why would anyone have a problem with journalists doing their job...I mean why would any non-fascist have a problem with journalists doing their job?


Quote:
Wasn't it Phillip Marshall who claimed the impact jets were modified in Arizona?
Didn't happen, so who cares?

Quote:
There are and were a lot of old aircraft in that graveyard.
How many 757s and 767s in 2001? I'm going with zero without wasting time looking that one up.


Quote:
"In Plane Sight" shows that both AA11 and UA175 flew over Stewart Airbase. ACARS tracks UA175 all the way toward Cleveland. So a modified impact jet hit the South tower, did the original UA175 end up back in the original frankenstein pile? Maybe. For the record, I'm inclined to think Atta flew AA11 into WTC1 per the official account, UA93 was shot down over Shanksville, and AA77 was diverted to Reagan.
More lies.

Worse, why rig buildings with explosives if you have packed a jet with explosives? Do you know how explosives even work on a practical level?

I'm guessing no.

Aircraft and missiles all have serial numbers as do the multitude of parts which they are constructed from. All of the numbers trace back to the aircraft involved, and no USAF missiles were unaccounted for on 9/12/2001.

Quote:
I got wound up in this thread because I don't think it's a fair assessment to blame the FBI or DoJ for anything related to 9/11 occurring. Now, did political players within the DoJ prevent a real investigation from occurring after the attacks? Absolutely.
And that's the problem.

Before 9/11 terrorism was a LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, not an intelligence issue (no matter how had some at Langley wanted it to be one). The FBI arrested Mir Qazi in Pakistan, and had a history of success with tracking down fugitives with minor assistance from CIA.

Most important in this picture is that pesky Constitution which places a long list of restrictions on law enforcement (even now), and casts a big gray area on what kind of intelligence passes as probable cause to acquire a warrant. In the late 1990s that gray area was much larger thanks to the endless internal investigations which seemed to be ongoing back then.

The CIA has its hands full dealing with the rest of the world.


Quote:
They should have a small team of serious skeptics to analyze their ops and find faults before they fly alleged 767-200's at 540mph at 1000'. Literally billions of dollars and they can't get simple details right... it's fundamentally pathetic and a consequence of zero oversight, a perfect example of Government waste. Were the idiots who authorized 10 stories of WTC1 destroying the remaining structure drawn and quartered? Counseled? or Kudoed? Your answer to that question will reveal the problem. We can't pay somebody to do this? How much is being spent to convince the masses that people who believe in science and logic are nuts? How stupid is that???
Very stupid, since none of that happened.

Quote:
Most of my generation could tell JFK was also shot from the front. We do grow out of the Santa Clause phase eventually you know....
Most of your generation was stoned because none of you saw the Zapruder Film until 1975, and by then most of your generation had already made up their minds based on lies.

And everything you've written here is 100% Santa Clause

Quote:
I'm talking about a plan to seize control of the United States with an executed COG, the acquisition of all available information in the digital domain and ability to garner it in the physical, the opportunity to suppress our enemies without revealing sources and methods in public courts, and the distraction of imperial wars for strategic territory and resources. And didn't Valerie Plame thwart the staging you suggest should have occurred?
9/11 wasn't required to make this happen. Silicon Valley has done this (for the most part) without firing a shot. Worse, people beg the Tech Industry to take their personal information, and unlike the US Government there are no limits to what they can do with their powers.

And no, Valerie Plame didn't thwart anything. We could have flown VX and Sarin into Iraq to be "found" by our troops, and no one would have been the wiser.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 7th May 2017, 09:08 PM   #99
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Hardly, the highlighted text is the posters obvious and uniformed opinion.

The only exemptions to this statute are:

Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

There is no exemption if you are a federal investigator. Your statement is patently false when it comes to intentionally lying,

Your opinion on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) that it was written to criminalize individuals lying to federal governmental agencies in matters that implicate such individuals or their associates; and it is not applicable to federal investigators is completely false, except for the exceptions I had noted above. The following defines a crime, if you commit the acts listed below, you have committed a crime and you are a criminal regardless if you are a Federal investigator or not a Federal investigator:

Anyone who knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony.

Obviously this does not cover unintentional oversights, unintentional failures, unintentional mistakes or just plain stupidity.
It's an opinion based on understanding the law's history and case law as well as its text. Do you have any actual case law of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for a discretionary investigatory decision made by an officer of any agency in the executive branch? I couldn't find any and I doubt you will.

And if you think the decisions made weren't within the discretion of the officers who made them, then go ahead and cite the exact protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process. Only been asking that since you first posted your nonsense claim that the individuals in question had a legal obligation to share information in the way you believe they should have.
benthamitemetric 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 May 2017, 01:13 PM   #100
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
It's an opinion based on understanding the law's history and case law as well as its text. Do you have any actual case law of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for a discretionary investigatory decision made by an officer of any agency in the executive branch? I couldn't find any and I doubt you will.

And if you think the decisions made weren't within the discretion of the officers who made them, then go ahead and cite the exact protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process. Only been asking that since you first posted your nonsense claim that the individuals in question had a legal obligation to share information in the way you believe they should have.
You wrote:

Do you have any actual case law of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for a discretionary investigatory decision made by an officer of any agency in the executive branch?

What? How did you come up with this obvious red herring?

The people who had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11 either had deliberately and repeatedly lied to the FBI criminal investigators who had wanted to start or continue FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists or radical Muslim terrorists found inside of the United States, or had withheld material information from their criminal investigations. Doing this had shut down criminal investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Their actions to shut down these investigations have never been explained in any way.

You wrote:

And if you think the decisions made weren't within the discretion of the officers who made them, then go ahead and cite the exact protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process. Only been asking that since you first posted your nonsense claim that the individuals in question had a legal obligation to share information in the way you believe they should have.

Now this really getting moronic.

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes. If you had even the slightest bit of legal knowledge, you would know this. But it is clear that you don't.

Of you do know this and then stated in your post what you have written, then you are deliberately being dishonest in your post.

Let me repeat so you do not miss understand what what a Federal statute means:

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.

Last edited by paloalto; 8th May 2017 at 01:56 PM.
paloalto 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 May 2017, 01:21 PM   #101
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You wrote:

Do you have any actual case law of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for a discretionary investigatory decision made by an officer of any agency in the executive branch?

What? How did you come with this red herring?

The people who had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11 either had deliberately and repeatedly lied to the FBI criminal investigators who had wanted to start or continue FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists or radical Muslim terrorists found inside of the United States, or had withheld material information from their criminal investigations. Doing this had shut down criminal investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Their actions to shut down these investigations have never been explained in any way.

You wrote:

And if you think the decisions made weren't within the discretion of the officers who made them, then go ahead and cite the exact protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process. Only been asking that since you first posted your nonsense claim that the individuals in question had a legal obligation to share information in the way you believe they should have.

Now this really getting moronic.

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes. If you had even the slightest bit of legal knowledge, you would know this. But it is clear that you don't.

Of you do know this and then stated in your post what you have written, then you are deliberately being dishonest in your post.

Let me repeat so you do not miss understand what what a Federal statute means:

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.
For each decision made by an agent of the federal government that you believe gives rise to a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action, state the exact legal protocol you believe such agent violated.

It's really simple. Why can't you just do it?

Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim. It's beating a dead horse at this point, but revisit the whole square peg/round hole analogy. That's why you're stuck.

Do you want to admit you cannot find any caselaw that supports your interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) as applied to federal agents, by the way? If not, please provide even a single case.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 8th May 2017 at 01:24 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 May 2017, 01:54 PM   #102
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
For each decision made by an agent of the federal government that you believe gives rise to a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action, state the exact legal protocol you believe such agent violated.

It's really simple. Why can't you just do it?

Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim. It's beating a dead horse at this point, but revisit the whole square peg/round hole analogy. That's why you're stuck.

Do you want to admit you cannot find any caselaw that supports your interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) as applied to federal agents, by the way? If not, please provide even a single case.
Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.

You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.

You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.

Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?

Last edited by paloalto; 8th May 2017 at 02:32 PM.
paloalto 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 May 2017, 06:17 PM   #103
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.
In a vacuum,sure, but in the real world of 2001 it just was not clear.

FBI management was risk averse, we know this from the Phoenix Memo, and Moussaoui. We know this because the FBI pushed John O'Neal out or the bureau. We know this because the Ambassador to Yemen hindered the FBI's investigation to the Cole bombing, and the FBI backed down.

We know that the NSA has admitted it had decisive information that it never read until weeks after 9/11.

Nobody at CIA or the FBI had evidence detailing an attack involving hijacking multiple jetliners to crash into the WTC or the Pentagon. There were meetings at Langley where attacks with jetliners were discussed in hypothetical situations, but all of those scenarios (to my knowledge) involved jets coming from overseas, and no domestic hijackings.

Without concrete foreknowledge on any level then there was no crime. We all know where the lines of investigation ended. In 16 years no additional information has been released to change anything about the 9/11 narrative.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 May 2017, 05:22 AM   #104
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.

You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.

You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.

Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?
What specific duty? Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government? You assume way too much and fail to provide actual specifics at every turn. You can't imagine these duties into existence. The agents either had specific duties to do a specific thing given specific circumstances or you have no 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim against them.
benthamitemetric 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 May 2017, 07:10 AM   #105
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them. What was your duty to report that information to some specific person in the federal government? Did you violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) by not doing so? If not, why not? If your answer is going to be that you were not an FBI or CIA agent at the time, then identify for me the specific legal obligations that an FBI or CIA agent had that you did not with respect to such information, assuming, in arguendo, that such agents knew everything you claim to have known.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 9th May 2017 at 07:12 AM.
benthamitemetric 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 May 2017, 12:39 PM   #106
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This will be funny........

*procuring more *

The fight is a bit unfair, as one contestant is a pro and the other not even an amateur. Entertaining nonetheless
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 May 2017, 02:17 PM   #107
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
What specific duty? Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government? You assume way too much and fail to provide actual specifics at every turn. You can't imagine these duties into existence. The agents either had specific duties to do a specific thing given specific circumstances or you have no 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim against them.
I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.
paloalto 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 May 2017, 02:22 PM   #108
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.
You merely assert there was a duty for any federal employee. You do not state where that duty comes from. Why can't you connect that duty to any actual legally binding law, regulation, or guideline?

And why can't you explain why you didn't have the same duty in the fantasy world in which you had specific foreknowledge about the attacks?

Maybe the following two questions will help you.

1. The violation of which of the following duties is a crime for which you may be prosecuted by the federal government?

(a) The duty to not transport a kidnapped person across state lines.
(b) The duty to tell the hobo in the subway stop to not harass the woman in the pink dress.
(c) The duty to wear a purple jacket and sing Sinatra when you take out the trash on a Thursday morning.

2. How could you prove the answer to number 1?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 9th May 2017 at 02:34 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 May 2017, 02:26 PM   #109
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.
Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

It seems you can't provide such evidence.

It appears you do not actually understand the relevant law.
You appear foolish to derive legal conclusions from the information you have discovered when you do not understand law, as you appear foolish to draw conclusions about the states of the minds of people many years ago when you have never met them and are not actually a psychic.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 May 2017, 04:33 PM   #110
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them. What was your duty to report that information to some specific person in the federal government? Did you violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) by not doing so? If not, why not? If your answer is going to be that you were not an FBI or CIA agent at the time, then identify for me the specific legal obligations that an FBI or CIA agent had that you did not with respect to such information, assuming, in arguendo, that such agents knew everything you claim to have known.
You wrote:

"Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them."

LINK?
paloalto 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 May 2017, 04:34 PM   #111
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

It seems you can't provide such evidence.

It appears you do not actually understand the relevant law.
You appear foolish to derive legal conclusions from the information you have discovered when you do not understand law, as you appear foolish to draw conclusions about the states of the minds of people many years ago when you have never met them and are not actually a psychic.
Already have see post 102.

I think you are repeating yourself.
paloalto 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 May 2017, 04:52 PM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Already have see post 102.
No, you haven't.
Post 102 is you talking, nothing else.
No evidence.
No link to, no quote from any document that proves the egal situation in the USA is as you claim.
benthamitemetric has asked you fpr very specific evidence . you can't and don't provide it. Most definitely not in post 102.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I think you are repeating yourself.
That's right. You haven't heeded the advice yet, so I repeat: Don't be a fool and pretend that you can read the minds of people you have never met, years ago.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 May 2017, 05:34 PM   #113
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No, you haven't.
Post 102 is you talking, nothing else.
No evidence.
No link to, no quote from any document that proves the egal situation in the USA is as you claim.
benthamitemetric has asked you fpr very specific evidence . you can't and don't provide it. Most definitely not in post 102.


That's right. You haven't heeded the advice yet, so I repeat: Don't be a fool and pretend that you can read the minds of people you have never met, years ago.
You do not have to read their minds after 16 years, the evidence now available, clearly shows their intent.

See the evidence that I have already posted in prior posts. See the article by Mark Rossini, he says it all.

Now let me guess, you can't remember what he said!
paloalto 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 May 2017, 07:12 PM   #114
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,377
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government?
I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.
Let's have a look at post 102 in full.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, but rather a refusal to make any such statement.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, but simply a re-statement of the question.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a personal statement of opinion.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a personal statement of opinion.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is an appeal to emotion based on hindsight.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a strawman argument.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?
This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a rhetorical question.

Let me offer some help here. A statement of where the duty is codified would take the form of: "The duty is codified in [statute], which states that [description of duty codified]." Unless and until you post an actual statement of this form, your repeated assertions that you have already done so will be seen as the attempts to evade the question that they so obviously are.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 10th May 2017, 12:49 AM   #115
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Notconvinced 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 10th May 2017, 04:10 AM   #116
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Quote:
Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.
Since my question went ignored, I'll repeat it, this time with the above quote for context:

Assuming, by hypothesis, that someone violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), who would prosecute it?

EDIT: Perhaps someone from the Truth Movement, the most active activist group in the world? (oh gosh, I should borrow that image of a guy leaning on a wall from Beachnut)
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 10th May 2017 at 04:14 AM.
pgimeno 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 10th May 2017, 07:21 AM   #117
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There is no exemption. The law in question only applies only in the context of a matter within the jurisdiction of the government. In this case, there were "matters" within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but those were not matters with respect to the FBI or CIA agents paloalto is questioning (just as they were not matters with respect to you or me), and there was no actual specific duty of the FBI or CIA agents to do the things paloalto believe they should have done.

If you suspect there may be a crime and you don't tell the FBI about it, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

If you tell an FBI agent you bump into on the street that you are dracula reborn and that you have the power to infuse cupcakes with cosmic love rays with your mind, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

If you are an FBI agent who followed existing protocols and procedures in the investigation of a crime and yet failed to put all the pieces of imperfect information together to actually thwart that crime, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

Read more about how 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claims are actually prosecuted in the real world and think on it: http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

Does it seem odd that paloalto has not yet found a single instance of a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) prosecution of the kind he calls for here?
benthamitemetric 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 10th May 2017, 11:21 AM   #118
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?
No, I assert no such thing.
I assert that paloalto is not providing evidence that his personal guesstimates are facts in the legal or psychological realms.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 10th May 2017, 11:26 AM   #119
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,824
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You do not have to read their minds after 16 years, the evidence now available, clearly shows their intent.
To the extent that the claimed intent includes, specifically and explicitly, the murder of 3,000 people, you are talking out of your arse and yes, that's pretending to read minds.

Your information appears to contain evidence of intent - however it doesn't reach as far as you claim.
I advise you to be careful what you claim - to make sure it is actually backed by evidence, not bias and conjecture.
You seem to have resolved most keenly on the intent to frustrate your own goals and objectives by sticking to foolish pretence of mind-reading.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
See the evidence that I have already posted in prior posts. See the article by Mark Rossini, he says it all.

Now let me guess, you can't remember what he said!
Mark Rossini provides no evidence that anyone at the CIA or FBI intended, explicitly, to have 3000 people murdered, as you so foolishly assert.

If you understood that foolish assertions like that kill your credibility dead, you would have retracted them already.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 10th May 2017, 03:43 PM   #120
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
To the extent that the claimed intent includes, specifically and explicitly, the murder of 3,000 people, you are talking out of your arse and yes, that's pretending to read minds.

Your information appears to contain evidence of intent - however it doesn't reach as far as you claim.
I advise you to be careful what you claim - to make sure it is actually backed by evidence, not bias and conjecture.
You seem to have resolved most keenly on the intent to frustrate your own goals and objectives by sticking to foolish pretence of mind-reading.


Mark Rossini provides no evidence that anyone at the CIA or FBI intended, explicitly, to have 3000 people murdered, as you so foolishly assert.

If you understood that foolish assertions like that kill your credibility dead, you would have retracted them already.
I had asked you to reread what Mark Rossini had written. It all there!

Let see if you can comprehend exactly what he said.

If you can actually comprehend exactly what he said, you will find he backs up my assertions as far as his experience with the CIA went!

I want to see if you can understand what he said?

In view of your prior posts, I doubt it!
paloalto 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 04:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.