9/11 Conspiracy Group Could Force Its Way Onto Ballot

[Mark F]

Yeah, that's a great thing. They all confessed not under torture but then they were tortured relentlessly to make sure they confessed under torture as well. One guy (maybe more?) even signed a confession he wasn't allowed to read. He probably trusted his torturers when they told him what he's signing is all true.

Would it make you feel better if we tortured Geedubya, Cheney and Silverstein to get them to confess?

 

[Thoreau72]

We have 5 people who have confessed and are quite proud of it awaiting trial as we speak.

And don't forget, you spent most of the last couple of weeks supporting a theory that the plotters (who you won't name) had revealed their plans to the media (for reasons you refuse to discuss) in advance.

Do you mean the 5 youngsters who confessed to the Central Park murder all those years ago?

You are so brainwashed Mark.

 

[Bob0627]

Would it make you feel better if we tortured Geedubya, Cheney and Silverstein to get them to confess?

Would you feel better? I'm not a barbarian, I believe in DUE PROCESS, despite that the first two deserve the same thing they promoted. If they were all charged and tried, we would get a hell of lot more credible information than if they were tortured. There is not one piece of reliable information anyone can get from using torture. Due process is not perfect but torture is 100% useless.

The Bush administration knew that and so did the torturers, the tortures were never meant to get any information, they were always meant to support the official narrative. Only ignorant and gullible people believe anything obtained under torture is reliable. A significant portion of the Commission Report is based on information obtained under torture from 3rd party sources. But I'm sure you're well aware of all this.

 

[Thoreau72]

Would it make you feel better if we tortured Geedubya, Cheney and Silverstein to get them to confess?

What an absurd post. :doh

 

[Mark F]

Would you feel better? I'm not a barbarian, I believe in DUE PROCESS,

No you don't. You believe in guilt-by-association and guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Mark F]

Do you mean the 5 youngsters who confessed to the Central Park murder all those years ago?

You are so brainwashed Mark.

:ws

Yes I mean the Central Park murderers confessed to 9/11.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

It's too bad there wasn't any torture, otherwise Bob might make sense.

 

[Bob0627]

No you don't. You believe in guilt-by-association and guilty until proven innocent.

Always trying to tell me what I think and making up lies. I don't think you even understand what due process is. If police arrest someone based on evidence that the person committed a crime, does it mean they don't believe in due process?

 

[Mark F]

Always trying to tell me what I think and making up lies. I don't think you even understand what due process is. If police arrest someone based on evidence that the person committed a crime, does it mean they don't believe in due process?

Just an observation on your pattern of behavior. A consistent pattern of behavior I might add.

 

[Bob0627]

Just an observation on your pattern of behavior. A consistent pattern of behavior I might add.

Evasion noted. So far, you show you don't understand the concept of due process and confuse it with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed.

So you're saying you observe, then make up lies. Yes that's pretty consistent.

 

[Mark F]

Evasion noted. So far, you show you don't understand the concept of due process and confuse it with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed.

So you're saying you observe, then make up lies. Yes that's pretty consistent.

[meaningless nonsense ignored]

 

[Fledermaus]

Evasion noted. So far, you show you don't understand the concept of due process and confuse it with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed.

So you're saying you observe, then make up lies. Yes that's pretty consistent.

Wait.... Aren't YOU the one claiming others who have not been convicted nor even charged are CRIMINALS?

 

[Mark F]

Wait.... Aren't YOU the one claiming others who have not been convicted nor even charged are CRIMINALS?

My point precisely. How many times have we seen Bob pull that, then claim "I'm not the police so it doesn't count".

 

[Bob0627]

My point precisely. How many times have we seen Bob pull that, then claim "I'm not the police so it doesn't count".

You don't have a point. Confusing due process with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed (crimes are committed by criminals) just makes you sound ignorant. Based on your logic, Hitler was not a criminal and committed no crimes because he was never charged or convicted of perpetrating any crime.

 

[Mark F]

You don't have a point. Confusing due process with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed (crimes are committed by criminals) just makes you sound ignorant. Based on your logic, Hitler was not a criminal and committed no crimes because he was never charged or convicted of perpetrating any crime.

OK then, How many times have you accused NIST of CRIMINAL FRAUD based on the flimsiest of evidence?

 

[Fledermaus]

You don't have a point. Confusing due process with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed (crimes are committed by criminals) just makes you sound ignorant. Based on your logic, Hitler was not a criminal and committed no crimes because he was never charged or convicted of perpetrating any crime.

No. He is pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. Oh, give my regards to Godwin.

So, the "criminals" you talk about... WHO would they be?

 

[Bob0627]

OK then, How many times have you accused NIST of CRIMINAL FRAUD based on the flimsiest of evidence?

The evidence that you believe is "flimsy" is actually overwhelming. Manipulating/concocting data and counterfeiting structural drawings (by removing structural components from actual drawings as if these didn't exist) in order to try to create a model that might support a predetermined conclusion is not just scientific fraud, it's also criminal fraud given the critical nature of the task, the immense responsibility and what these people were PAID to do. And that was just one element of NIST's fraud. There is much more to it as posted and even that's incomplete:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-fraudulent-report-collapse-wtc7-9-11-a.html

That you come up with "flimsiest of evidence" is just part of your agenda. You know full well the extent of the fraud, pretending it's "flimsy" is quite transparent. Even you admit NIST "got it wrong", which is disingenuous, which also means their entire 600+ page report is worthless and that is one reason why this action is being taken (to get a real investigation conducted) and why this thread exists.

 

[Thoreau72]

You don't have a point. Confusing due process with one's personal belief that a crime has been committed (crimes are committed by criminals) just makes you sound ignorant. Based on your logic, Hitler was not a criminal and committed no crimes because he was never charged or convicted of perpetrating any crime.

They must attempt to control the conversation and steer it away from any discussion of facts and evidence. Keep stirring up the trivia, seems to be their method.

When the debate is lost, slander and changing the subject become tools of the loser.

 

[Bob0627]

OK then

Thanks for admitting you were wrong BTW.

 

[Fledermaus]

They must attempt to control the conversation and steer it away from any discussion of facts and evidence. Keep stirring up the trivia, seems to be their method.

When the debate is lost, slander and changing the subject become tools of the loser.

Got any "facts and evidence" to share? Like EVIDENCE of explosives in WTC7? Or EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? How about EVIDENCE that Flight 93 was shot down?

No?

 

[Fledermaus]

Thanks for admitting you were wrong BTW.

Dishonest truncation of question noted.... How many times have you accused NIST of CRIMINAL FRAUD based on the flimsiest of evidence?

 

[Thoreau72]

Got any "facts and evidence" to share? Like EVIDENCE of explosives in WTC7? Or EVIDENCE of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? How about EVIDENCE that Flight 93 was shot down?

No?

93 was not shot down my simple friend, at least not at Shanksville. Probably it wasn't shot down at all.

ACARS data shows the flight was still in the air 30 minutes after its supposed crash time in PA.

Had you been paying attention to detail you would know that.

Why do you think it was shot down?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

They must attempt to control the conversation and steer it away from any discussion of facts and evidence. Keep stirring up the trivia, seems to be their method.

When the debate is lost, slander and changing the subject become tools of the loser.

Wow, the irony.

 

[Thoreau72]

Dishonest truncation of question noted.... How many times have you accused NIST of CRIMINAL FRAUD based on the flimsiest of evidence?

Flimsiest of evidence?

Overwhelming evidence is the right description. Even a layman like myself can see the political incest and nepotism involved. How could anything of accuracy and dignity come from that? It cannot.

NIST was a fraud, meant to protect the guilty and appease the gullible.

 

[Fledermaus]

93 was not shot down my simple friend, at least not at Shanksville. Probably it wasn't shot down at all.

ACARS data shows the flight was still in the air 30 minutes after its supposed crash time in PA.

Had you been paying attention to detail you would know that.

Why do you think it was shot down?

ACARS? Really? That HAS to be a Basalmo special...

Flight 93 impacted the ground in Shanksville child.

The RADAR confirms, the debris confirms, the DNA confirms, the phone calls confirm, the voice data recorder confirms.... "facts and evidence" in action.