Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: Wed21Sep Bristol 'Explosive Evidence-9/11Experts Speak Out'
[b]UK PREMIERE[/b]
A FILM FROM ‘ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH’
TO MARK THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ATTACKS
‘EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE - 9/11 EXPERTS SPEAK OUT’
In this groundbreaking documentary Richard Gage is joined by dozens of highly credentialed technical professionals including high-rise architects and structural engineers, metallurgists, physicists, explosive experts, and others.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth now number over 1,500 technical and building professionals, 43 of whom in this film are doing as the title suggests, namely ‘SPEAKING OUT’ about the deep flaws in the official story.
Calls for justice from victims’ family members put to rest the objection that the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth offends them, they in fact provide a moving conclusion with their heartfelt calls for a new investigation.
The film will be shown at Colston Hall on Wednesday 21st September at 7.30p.m.
Tickets £3.00 available from Colston Hall box office on 0117 922 3686
[/b]
'Explosive evidence', but no case filed to prove this explosive evidence, even ten years after.
There's an energy cover-up going on too. For the genuine 'truthers' out there realise that this is a diversion from other evidence.
Dr Wood and John Lash The quintessential talk on 911 Hourhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok-the-talk/2011/09/06/dr-wood-and-john -lash-the-quintessential-talk-on-911-hour-1
Best as Q&A session from 09:30 onwards _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Alas, several lawsuits have been filed, alleging involvement by parties other than agents of Al Qaeda as commonly understood. Each of these lawsuits has been found wanting in such a way that further attempts appear, to me, to be hopeless. The two best-known lawsuits, Taxpayers of USA v. George W. Bush et al. (called the Hilton lawsuit after the lawyer bringing the case) and William Rodriguez v. George H. W. Bush et al. (called the Berg lawsuit for the same reason), have been criticized for pleading matters extraneous to the events of 9/11, among other noted flaws. Both lawsuits were dismissed before the stage of discovery was reached. In the Berg suit, Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York, cited the United States Supreme Court: “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” In the Hilton suit, Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California, also citing the United States Supreme Court, noted that “the bar of sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming officers and employees of the United States as defendants.”
The sovereign immunity doctrine comes from British common law, under which the king could not be sued (as is still the case in countries such as Denmark, Norway and other European countries). Of course, every American grade school child knows that the American Revolution did away with the king. But the foregoing judicial decisions make it appear, however shocking it may be to Americans, that a lawsuit making a direct frontal attack on high-level insiders, hoping to obtain through discovery information that will expose the truth regarding the 9/11 destruction, will not succeed.
The inability to obtain information by such a tactic was underscored by the opinion of Judge Denis Chin of the Southern District of New York in dismissing as frivolous the complaint in Gallop v. Cheney. According to Chin:
That means that I can only think of one person (possibly in part two people) who has took on the so-called crown on its sovereignty. And is registered (by their own system) and anyone can use the same defence. And use the Law that they swore to uphold to the up most, which was not common law.
Also recently (Fri Sep 09) Norman Scarth got a plea of mercy and the case quashed (for doing no wrong) he used part of the same defence.
Ok, interesting, but even when Dr Steven Jones had so-called evidence of thermate he and/or the concerned parties intending to challenge Bush et al in court never took the opportunity to do so earlier. What was the delay? Did they think it best to wait until the 10th anniversary to see if it was possible and then come-up with a loophole in the law as an excuse not to file one.
Where is their online version of this paper so that we can all see the evidence?
Here are Dr Judy Wood's case notes
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
Defendants.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html . _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject:
How is Dr Wood's case progressing? _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
Defendants.
How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine ?
Quote:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/437-king.html
The sovereign immunity doctrine comes from British common law, under which the king could not be sued (as is still the case in countries such as Denmark, Norway and other European countries). Of course, every American grade school child knows that the American Revolution did away with the king.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
Defendants.
How did she get on, won / lost / deferred ?
Quote:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/437-king.html
The sovereign immunity doctrine comes from British common law, under which the king could not be sued (as is still the case in countries such as Denmark, Norway and other European countries). Of course, every American grade school child knows that the American Revolution did away with the king.
Not.
Have a look at the website and find out. Listen to her on the show. Do you think that the existence of Directed Free energy weaponised technology is going to be made public by allowing this case to progress in the public courts?
Why are you going to lengths to try to irrationalise this information. I am not Dr Judy Wood, send her an email, ask her or Andrew Johnson the same question. Dr Judy Wood is not the enemy, she has done nothing but good.
To go to such lengths to try to prove what she is saying is wrong says that you're afraid of something or you're part of the cover up.
The truth takes no sides, but embraces evidence if it is solid, like Dr Wood's. I don't need to justify my belief in her work it's all there for you.
_________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject:
Marigold wrote
Quote:
"Do you think that the existence of Directed Free energy weaponised technology is going to be made public by allowing this case to progress in the public courts? "
So why bother filing a case that she knew would stand no chance? _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
If she or you and others are serious about taking this case as with any case all the way then the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine.
"How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine?"
And it will need numbers of people to do it, the more the better.
She filed it in the hope that a chance would develop. Not everyone in the judicial system and government are corrupt. Also filing it officially proves the evidence for the non-corrupt members of the system that are interested in knowing what happened. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
If she or you and others are serious about taking this case as with any case all the way then the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine.
"How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine?"
And it will need numbers of people to do it, the more the better.
Go and read about it Andrew, it's all there. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
If she or you and others are serious about taking this case as with any case all the way then the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine.
"How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine?"
And it will need numbers of people to do it, the more the better.
Go and read about it Andrew, it's all there.
Please send her the message that the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine. Its all documented how to and she can use that defence and get help with it also. Please advise us how she responds. Any evidence will have to stand up in court and people Subpoenaed (called to witness) for evidence.
If she or you and others are serious about taking this case as with any case all the way then the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine.
"How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine?"
And it will need numbers of people to do it, the more the better.
Go and read about it Andrew, it's all there.
Please send her the message that the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine. Its all documented how to and she can use that defence and get help with it also. Please advise us how she responds. Any evidence will have to stand up in court and people Subpoenaed (called to witness) for evidence.
Ok, I'll do that, thanks. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
If she or you and others are serious about taking this case as with any case all the way then the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine.
"How did she get on, won / lost / deferred / sovereign immunity doctrine?"
And it will need numbers of people to do it, the more the better.
Go and read about it Andrew, it's all there.
Please send her the message that the only way is to challenge the crown sovereign immunity doctrine. Its all documented how to and she can use that defence and get help with it also. Please advise us how she responds. Any evidence will have to stand up in court and people Subpoenaed (called to witness) for evidence.
Well noted Andrew. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Could you also ask about 9/11 as to see if she intends a court case on wider issues concerning 9/11, rather than what Energy weapons exist.
.
I've sent on the request Andrew. Not sure if she is able to do the latter which you ask though. What do you mean by wider issues? If it's not scientifically provable then probably not, but Jerry Leaphart Jsleaphart@cs.com
is her Attorney at Law so he might be the man to ask if Dr Wood isn't able to get back to me. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
So why bother filing a case that she knew would stand no chance?
She likely didn't know when she filed it. In any case, if you file a court case based on the evidence you speak about in public, it means you know that it is correct and the truth.
This is yet another reason which proves that what AE911 and co are doing is NOT serious.
But hey, we've talked about that before and fingers immediately go in ears and the spinning merrygoround of nonsense goes into overdrive.
So again, as Marigold said, ALL the evidence is there now. Belief is no longer required. Knowledge is available. End of debate.
I am not sure if the falls under common law type issues because it's a criminal investigation - or should be - property and people were harmed and killed.
This is too big for the system to deal with - but as I said above, as peaceful people, only certain channels are open in trying to hold the perpetrators - and their accomplices in the Military Industrial complex - to account.
But some people want to keep knowledge of this covered up, as I have documented here:
An excellent piece of detective work given in the video Andrew J. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
I've sent on the request Andrew. Not sure if she is able to do the latter which you ask though. What do you mean by wider issues? If it's not scientifically provable then probably not, but Jerry Leaphart Jsleaphart@cs.com
is her Attorney at Law so he might be the man to ask if Dr Wood isn't able to get back to me.
Ok, thank you.
The wider issues could be the scientific evidence of the sciences of Engineers and Architects. It could also include other evidence of people who would swear in court of those who could have only been responsible for it after a full and public investigation with a jury (And not a controled only questions asked enquiry, via a pretence so-called public enquiry) And the purpose would be to bring those people responsible if and when found guilty to Justice. which is the whole point of it.
Quote:
This is too big for the system to deal with - but as I said above, as peaceful people, only certain channels are open in trying to hold the perpetrators - and their accomplices in the Military Industrial complex - to account.
Which is why you have to go to the very top and take on the crown sovereign immunity doctrine as others have already done. Its all documented how to and she or whoever can use that defence and get help with it also.
If she or whoever doesn’t want to then that’s up to them, but that is the only way if who ever is serious about it. So it’s take on the crown sovereign immunity doctrine via those Laws or they are not serious about it, or fear they should not proceed, or even are on side with the real criminals. It will need the support of lots of people the more the better so people should work together with that defence on the separate issues of:
What energy weapons were actually available and were they used?
Who could have been the only people responsible for the collapse of the buildings with reference to the full and public enquiry if and/or when found that it was controlled demolition.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject:
Calls for a new investigation into 9/11
presstvlondon
In this edition of the show Nargess Moballeghi discusses the truth of 9/11 with the American architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage.
Gage says his organization wants a new investigation that takes into account the evidence not reviewed by the National Institute of Science and Technology report. He cites the molten metal seen at the base of the three skyscrapers and the fact that fire could not have razed the third World Trade Center building, WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, to the ground.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
