9/11 Conspiracy Group Could Force Its Way Onto Ballot

[Thoreau72]

Colbert had DeBlasio on last night. I haven't viewed the show yet, but will tonight. I'm curious if Colbert will touch this issue with The Mayor, but I doubt he will.

 

[Renae]

If it is so certain that 77 hit the Pentagon, wouldn't you think the government would be happy to have it proved in an open court of law?

Why then, has the government, by way of the judiciary, kept out of court ANYBODY who tried to get into court to ascertain exactly what happened?

Look dude, my former chief saw the damn thing hit. He watched it go in. I know him, personally. He's no government stooge, no one "got to him" and he can differentiate between a cruise missile and an airliner.

You people need to get over it.

Here, I got something for you:



Before you scoff, look at how easily it is to manipulate the information, with a little innuendo, a little half truth mixed with some crazy and viola, you have a CT. I love this video because it shows how easy it is to manipulate people into believing madness.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes Mr. V, look at how easy it is to manipulate the information.

For example, the NTSB provided the Flight Data Recorder for 77, and lo and behold, somebody forgot to assign it to a particular airframe.

Your chief has convinced himself that he saw the plane strike the building, but none of the hard facts support that claim.

Just as Bill Clinton convinced himself that he did not have sex with that woman, perhaps your chief has misspoken?

If there is nothing there belonging to 77, how in the hell could it have hit the building? If a handful of others saw an airplane miss the building in a big way, maybe your chief was wrong.

Or maybe, just as the Pentagon lied to Mary Tillman about how her son died, it is lying about what happened there. It seems to me that if they had a solid case they would provide some video footage from some of the hundreds of surveillance cameras on the grounds, or they would encourage an open trial proving their case.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes Mr. V, look at how easy it is to manipulate the information.

For example, the NTSB provided the Flight Data Recorder for 77, and lo and behold, somebody forgot to assign it to a particular airframe.

Your chief has convinced himself that he saw the plane strike the building, but none of the hard facts support that claim.

Just as Bill Clinton convinced himself that he did not have sex with that woman, perhaps your chief has misspoken?

If there is nothing there belonging to 77, how in the hell could it have hit the building? If a handful of others saw an airplane miss the building in a big way, maybe your chief was wrong.

Or maybe, just as the Pentagon lied to Mary Tillman about how her son died, it is lying about what happened there. It seems to me that if they had a solid case they would provide some video footage from some of the hundreds of surveillance cameras on the grounds, or they would encourage an open trial proving their case.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

They aren't hiding everything... You are simply incapable of research.

At least research outside of factually deficient websites.... P4T, AE911t6ruth....

 

[Fledermaus]

If it is so certain that 77 hit the Pentagon, wouldn't you think the government would be happy to have it proved in an open court of law?

Why then, has the government, by way of the judiciary, kept out of court ANYBODY who tried to get into court to ascertain exactly what happened?

What happened is a Boeing was flown into the Pentagon. That is KNOWN to be FACT. It is KNOWN be the FACT by virtue of the EVIDENCE. Practically EVERY piece of evidence shows it to be true. Why would it need the additional proof in "an open court of law"?

AND, in case you missed it, it HAS seen it's day in court.

 

[Thoreau72]

Where did it see its day in court Maus? In your tortured dreams?

There was no Boeing that struck the Pentagon, and every swinging Richard that was there in the first few minutes noted that simple fact, including two police helicopter pilots and some news reporter. Until the wall fell down there was no hole for the airplane to have entered through.

No 757 engines, landing gear, baggage or anything else.

You've been fooled Maus, and 13 years later still cannot figure it out.

 

[Mark F]

You've been fooled Maus, and 13 years later still cannot figure it out.

Unfortunately you had it figured out THEN you got fooled. :2bow:

 

[Fledermaus]

Where did it see its day in court Maus? In your tortured dreams?

Oh, I forget you are IGNORING the Mossaui trial.

There was no Boeing that struck the Pentagon, and every swinging Richard that was there in the first few minutes noted that simple fact, including two police helicopter pilots and some news reporter. Until the wall fell down there was no hole for the airplane to have entered through.

And you are IGNORING the EVIDENCE at the Pentagon too.

Couple that with the fact you have not read the Pentagon Performance Report (NOT a government document) http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/01-PBPR.pdf

CLUE: damage was far beyond the Truther "20 foot hole".

No 757 engines, landing gear, baggage or anything else.

I underlined the part that you are wrong on... Oh, the entire thing.

An engine WAS found. - Lie #1.
Landing gear WAS found - Lie #2
Baggage AKA Personal effects WERE found - Lie #3
"Anything else" can include the Debris consistent with Flight 77, the DNA of the victims, the flight data recorder, etc. Lie #4

Why do you lie?

You've been fooled Maus, and 13 years later still cannot figure it out.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

[Fledermaus]

 

[Fledermaus]

 

[Sunzi]

Yes Mr. V, look at how easy it is to manipulate the information.

For example, the NTSB provided the Flight Data Recorder for 77, and lo and behold, somebody forgot to assign it to a particular airframe.

Your chief has convinced himself that he saw the plane strike the building, but none of the hard facts support that claim.

Just as Bill Clinton convinced himself that he did not have sex with that woman, perhaps your chief has misspoken?

If there is nothing there belonging to 77, how in the hell could it have hit the building? If a handful of others saw an airplane miss the building in a big way, maybe your chief was wrong.

Or maybe, just as the Pentagon lied to Mary Tillman about how her son died, it is lying about what happened there. It seems to me that if they had a solid case they would provide some video footage from some of the hundreds of surveillance cameras on the grounds, or they would encourage an open trial proving their case.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

The government lies about stuff, and you lie about 911. Is this how you get even, spreading really dumb lies about 911?

The FDR is from 77, saying otherwise is a lie. And you can't prove it is not from 77 - never will.

 

[Thoreau72]

Maus

The Moussaoui trial was about 93, not 77.

 

[Thoreau72]

The government lies about stuff, and you lie about 911. Is this how you get even, spreading really dumb lies about 911?

The FDR is from 77, saying otherwise is a lie. And you can't prove it is not from 77 - never will.

Silly Goose! You cannot prove it IS from 77. It is not assigned to an airframe. Can you dig it? Or is that too complex for you to grasp?

 

[Fledermaus]

Maus

The Moussaoui trial was about 93, not 77.

Borscht.. It was about 9/11.

16. From in or about 1989 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, a/k/a "Shaqil," a/k/a "Abu Khalid al Sahrawi," with other members and associates of al Qaeda and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed to kill and maim persons within the United States, and to create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to other persons by destroying and damaging structures, conveyances, and other real and personal property within the United States, in violation of the laws of States and the United States, in circumstances involving conduct transcending national boundaries, and in which facilities of interstate and foreign commerce were used in furtherance of the offense, the offense obstructed, delayed, and affected interstate and foreign commerce, the victim was the United States Government, members of the uniformed services, and officials, officers, employees, and agents of the governmental branches, departments, and agencies of the United States, and the structures, conveyances, and other real and personal property were, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, and leased to the United States and its departments and agencies, resulting in the deaths of thousands of persons on September 11, 2001.

AND EVIDENCE of Flight 77 was introduced... CLUE: LOOK AT THE PICTURES.

 

[Fledermaus]

Silly Goose! You cannot prove it IS from 77. It is not assigned to an airframe. Can you dig it? Or is that too complex for you to grasp?

Well since there is RADAR showing Flight 77, the EYEWITNESSES to Flight 77, DEBRIS consistent with Flight 77, DNA consistent with passengers on Flight 77, DAMAGE consistent with Flight 77, PERSONAL EFFECTS consistent with Flight 77, the calls terminating from Flight 77, an engine consistent with Flight 77, landing gear consistent with Flight 77, wheel consistent with Flight 77....

Pretty safe bet the "FDR didn't come form Flight 77" crowd is clueless...

 

[NWO_Spook]

Maus

The Moussaoui trial was about 93, not 77.

Er.....no. You can view the evidence presented regarding AA77 at the Moussaoui trial here (see Phase 2):

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

 

[Mark F]

Er.....no. You can view the evidence presented regarding AA77 at the Moussaoui trial here (see Phase 2):

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Don't encourage him. It's not worth the effort since Henry isn't serious anyway.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Don't encourage him. It's not worth the effort since Henry isn't serious anyway.

Yeah, good point. He will only derail the thread with criticism over a poorly perceived anomaly, and if he knew the subject like he boasts, he should have known that the Moussaoui trial covered the whole Al-Qaeda operation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, good point. He will only derail the thread with criticism over a poorly perceived anomaly, and if he knew the subject like he boasts, he should have known that the Moussaoui trial covered the whole Al-Qaeda operation.

It is not like it hasn't been explained over and over....

I guess he read this as he read the Payne Stewart Report. And the NIST Report. And the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

[Mark F]

Yeah, good point. He will only derail the thread with criticism over a poorly perceived anomaly, and if he knew the subject like he boasts, he should have known that the Moussaoui trial covered the whole Al-Qaeda operation.

AND,... he can only deal with one anomaly at a time, which is of course why he always gets it wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

AND,... he can only deal with one anomaly at a time, which is of course why he always gets it wrong.

...and we all know why truthers and trolls and members of the species poeus minimi - common name "Lesser Poe" - can only process one anomaly at a time...

 

[Mark F]

...and we all know why truthers and trolls and members of the species poeus minimi - common name "Lesser Poe" - can only process one anomaly at a time...

Its a circular process really - chicken and egg sort of thing :mrgreen:

 

[Sunzi]

Silly Goose! You cannot prove it IS from 77. It is not assigned to an airframe. Can you dig it? Or is that too complex for you to grasp?

Yes I can prove it. You are the on who can't prove it is not. The raw data matches all 25 hours of the aircraft, RADAR matches the FDR. People who do real science can figure it out, you spread lies about 911 and mock the murder of thousands of Americans. Why do you spread lies? Why can't you understand how RADAR verifies the FDR?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
Oops, RADAR proves you wrong - again.
https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf
Oops, your lie is exposed, FDR matches RADAR data. Did you forget to check reality based evidence before making up nonsense.
https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
We own the government, it is ours. How can the USA hide anything when we can have all the raw data on disk. Did you fail to get the data?

Your lie is exposed. Why do you lie about the murder of thousands? You have no evidence for your lies, did you make them up or plagiarize them from the failed 911 truth movement.

911 truth in the 13th year of spreading lies which fool people like the Boston bombers. 911 truth followers peers, are/was the Boston bombers - peers in woo, lies and really dumb claims.

Your lie about Flight 77 is silly nonsense. If your lie was the truth, you could team with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer Prize. But you have zero evidence, you made up a fantasy. Now you are stuck with being laughed at by newspapers, you are stuck spreading silly lies. 13 years of lies from a failed movement which has no evidence, and no clue what happened on 911.

Since you deny RADAR and FDR, don't fly, those important things are used to keep us safe in the sky, and you deny they are real, or right. You don't understand simple evidence. IT is easier to make up lies, it takes no effort, no research, only ignornace of flying, RADAR, FDR, and the ability to lie about the murder of thousands. OMG, look where we are at... in Conspiracy Theories, were we discuss the dumbed down conspiracies of 911 and other failed things people lie about.

Why can't you post your lies in current news? We are the NWO, and our check is in the mail... lol,

Remember Tomas Jefferson, he said we were the new order of the ages - he never talked about citizens spreading lies like 911 truth does. You spread lies like you say the government does, you are like the government. The key is to know what is a lie, and 911 truth followers have no tools to figure out what lies are - 911 truth followers are gullible.

omg - i type way too fast - or is it my NWO voice to text super nano speech chip ... Tell me again, why you are stuck spreading your fantasy here

 

[Bob0627]

We own the government, it is ours.

By "we" do you mean you're a living, breathing corporation (according to SCOTUS)? They're the only ones who own the US government as far as I know, although the Saudis might dispute that.

 

[Fledermaus]

By "we" do you mean you're a living, breathing corporation (according to SCOTUS)? They're the only ones who own the US government as far as I know, although the Saudis might dispute that.

Civics 101 fail....

Which "living, breathing corporation" do YOU believe owns the US government?