| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: Truthers' Evidence To Court |
 |
|
Never mind what critics think of the evidence and calculations put forward by the conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists believe it is solid, irrefutable, undeniable, copper bottomed etc. That makes it so.
So truthers, get Charlie Sheen, not short of a few bucks to finance taking your case to court in the US. Or Jimmy Walter (loaded). Turn out your expert witnesses and prove your case to a court. Each day you delay you are covering up the murder of thousands. And blackcat will call you names, isn’t that so blackcat?
Or as a trial run, take your evidence about 7/7 to a UK court. You have a judge on your (9/11) side already, ask the good friend of poster Dr Hemp.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4987&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=0
I’m surprised you aren’t already being petitioned by lawyers a plenty. They know rock solid evidence when they see it and know how to spin lame evidence. It is possible, indeed popular to take the government to court these days. When you win, you can also be awarded costs so you are not out of pocket. Boasting about the strength of your evidence on the internet isn’t going to make anything happen.
So, what are you waiting for truthers? Demonstrate some confidence in your evidence and powers of reasoning and persuasion. Your destiny awaits.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: Truthers' Evidence To Court |
|
|
A Sharp Major wrote:
| Quote: | | Never mind what critics think of the evidence and calculations put forward by the conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists believe it is solid, irrefutable, undeniable, copper bottomed etc. That makes it so. |
This is a bizarre stance.
To say that a theory is solid, irrefutable, undeniable, copper bottomed etc is simply incorrect. If it were irrefutable, it would not be a theory.
Unfortunately we currently have nothing that is irrefutable, in other words, we could stand up in court and raise questions and points, but there will always be a counter-argument reasonable enough to cast doubt in the minds of those you wish to convince otherwise.
All the real hardcore 'evidence' resides in a filled-in hole somewhere, has been burnt or sent to the bottom of the Pacific. We have a great many notions and beliefs, but nothing more.
Until something new emerges, that is the state of play.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The most likely source of new evidence will be from military personell as they are subpoened in the upcoming re-investigation.
That's the most likely dam to break first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation said
| Quote: | This is a bizarre stance.
To say that a theory is solid, irrefutable, undeniable, copper bottomed etc is simply incorrect. If it were irrefutable, it would not be a theory. |
I know that. It doesn't stop conspiracy theorists making such claims for their 'evidence'.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek said
| Quote: | | The most likely source of new evidence will be from military personell as they are subpoened in the upcoming re-investigation. |
Like Sergeant Lauro LJ Chavez?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | chek said
| Quote: | | The most likely source of new evidence will be from military personell as they are subpoened in the upcoming re-investigation. |
Like Sergeant Lauro LJ Chavez? |
Starting slightly higher up the food chain would be more productive.
Arnold, McKinley - y'know, the usual 911 Commission suspects.
See where that leads next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't all those being "falsely" accused of mass murder and treason sue their accusers? the more they delay the more it looks like, what's the legal term? guilty demeanour??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Why don't all those being "falsely" accused of mass murder and treason sue their accusers? the more they delay the more it looks like, what's the legal term? guilty demeanour??? |
I'd guess there are so many destitute nutters out there who are perfectly willing to get dragged throught the courts, that the "accused" wouldn't have the time to get any work done.
Most of us would agree that this might make the world a better place, but it ain't likely to happen.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Why don't all those being "falsely" accused of mass murder and treason sue their accusers? the more they delay the more it looks like, what's the legal term? guilty demeanour??? |
What form do the accusations take? Are you pointing to Loose Change and similar works as being the source of the accusations? If so, they can simply sit back and laugh, for currently all the hardcore evidence (the only real things that could secure a conviction), have been acquired/lost/dealt with/destroyed.
It is far easier in every respect to just label 'accusers' as conspiracy theorists/loonies/fanatics or supporters of terrorists, and in many ways it aids their cause.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just want a single anomaly that points to an inside-job. I'm much easier to convince than a court of law which would require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal proceedings, or "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil suit.
I just need one piece of solid evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theres lots of evidence of the fact things couldnt of happened how stated the only thing thats missing is proof of evidence ie: documents exposing it, enough people coming forward ect ect. and also those in power giving a dam about any of it, as they pull the strings and if they decide to ignore/do nothing then thats what will happen and is happening. as for proving certain people were involved i agree with telecastration that all hard evidence would of been destroyed, so that only leaves people coming forward to attach people to it, if indeed its all a cover up. i personally think that 9/11 isnt the key to exposing anything and is a distraction from exposing the truth. by questioning whats happening here and now and exposing lies is the only way it all could eventually link back to 9/11 as things come out. i question the whole war on terror and what it means and where its heading. i question why our freedoms are being removed to protect us, and why people willingly give them up. i believe its all linked to 9/11 for without it none of it would be possible but i reckon the only way is to chip away at the layers which 5 years on 9/11 is deep within those layers now. people might not see 9/11 was a cover up on its own but if they started to learn how we are being fooled on other things even a dimwit would eventually see what was needed to achieve there motives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Why don't all those being "falsely" accused of mass murder and treason sue their accusers? the more they delay the more it looks like, what's the legal term? guilty demeanour??? |
What form do the accusations take? Are you pointing to Loose Change and similar works as being the source of the accusations? If so, they can simply sit back and laugh, for currently all the hardcore evidence (the only real things that could secure a conviction), have been acquired/lost/dealt with/destroyed.
It is far easier in every respect to just label 'accusers' as conspiracy theorists/loonies/fanatics or supporters of terrorists, and in many ways it aids their cause. |
You talk in riddles so much it's hard to reply but if you mean all the hard evidence that could convict the real 9/11 evil doers has been liquidated what is stopping them from sueing those who accuse them of mass murder and treason?
Our comrade GGGalloway didn't just reply to those accusing him of being "Saddam's little helper" with "nutter, CT conspiraloon" how would it have looked if he had? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | You talk in riddles so much it's hard to reply but if you mean all the hard evidence that could convict the real 9/11 evil doers has been liquidated what is stopping them from sueing those who accuse them of mass murder and treason?
|
They're public figures. It's extremely difficult to sue someone for slandering a public figure, especially if the person doing the slandering is not worthy of the public figure's notice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL waffled;
| Quote: | | You talk in riddles so much it's hard to reply but if you mean all the hard evidence that could convict the real 9/11 evil doers has been liquidated what is stopping them from sueing those who accuse them of mass murder and treason? |
I asked;
| Quote: | | What form do the accusations take? Are you pointing to Loose Change and similar works as being the source of the accusations? |
In other words, who is publicly accusing who of being complicite in 9/11?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
Since a re-investigation is not going to happen, I was suggesting another way forward for you if you actually believe what you say. If you don't want to take it up, well................
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
Since a re-investigation is not going to happen, I was suggesting another way forward for you if you actually believe what you say. If you don't want to take it up, well................ |
Well what? That Arnold and McKinley didn't lie?
And now we're on the third post of meaningless content free drivel.
Bad day today BW? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL waffled;
| Quote: | | You talk in riddles so much it's hard to reply but if you mean all the hard evidence that could convict the real 9/11 evil doers has been liquidated what is stopping them from sueing those who accuse them of mass murder and treason? |
I asked;
| Quote: | | What form do the accusations take? Are you pointing to Loose Change and similar works as being the source of the accusations? |
In other words, who is publicly accusing who of being complicite in 9/11? |
Their conclusions in 'Loose change2' are pretty explicit, I'm sure they'd get a defamation/slander rap to stick in the 'land of the litigant' if their was a will.
What if someone started mouthing... "Telecasterisation house fire INSIDE JOB" in print? what would you do if you'd lost close (life insured)relatives and everyone believed some mad suicide muslim arsonist did it?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
Since a re-investigation is not going to happen, I was suggesting another way forward for you if you actually believe what you say. If you don't want to take it up, well................ |
Well what? That Arnold and McKinley didn't lie?
And now we're on the third post of meaningless content free drivel.
Bad day today BW? |
No, try to concentrate, old chap, this is a suggestion for trying to get wealthy organisations with a strong financial interest in proving Silverstein was involved in a conspiracy to destroy the WTC complex, to take up the matter legally, the subject of the thread. Truthshirkers claim they have evidence available already, here are people who would value it. Concentrate on that, not sadistic fantasies about interrogating generals.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL responded;
| Quote: | | What if someone started mouthing... "Telecasterisation house fire INSIDE JOB" in print? what would you do if you'd lost close (life insured)relatives and everyone believed some mad suicide muslim arsonist did it?? |
It depends solely on whether I had done it or not. Plus, if my mother-in-law had been a victim I would simply want to celebrate for a long long time and not be bothered by any daft accusations.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
Since a re-investigation is not going to happen, I was suggesting another way forward for you if you actually believe what you say. If you don't want to take it up, well................ |
Well what? That Arnold and McKinley didn't lie?
And now we're on the third post of meaningless content free drivel.
Bad day today BW? |
No, try to concentrate, old chap, this is a suggestion for trying to get wealthy organisations with a strong financial interest in proving Silverstein was involved in a conspiracy to destroy the WTC complex, to take up the matter legally, the subject of the thread. Truthshirkers claim they have evidence available already, here are people who would value it. Concentrate on that, not sadistic fantasies about interrogating generals. |
Firstly the thread relates to the best way of gaining convictions.
Following up perjury charges in one way to follow the trail back to the rat's nest.
Secondly - are you saying your Prez has legalized fantastic and sadistic methods?
I'm sure he'd be shocked to hear it put quite that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Insurance companies have plenty of money and do not like to pay out on fraudulent claims. Larry Silverstein's have been fighting him through the courts ever since 9/11. If they were presented with any chance of persuading a court that his claim was fraudulent, because he was party to a conspiracy to blow up the buildings, they would pursue it for all they were worth. All the truthshirkers have to do is to persuade them that it would be worthwhile following that line of enquiry, they would love to find a reason not to pay out. |
You're back to an expert against expert stand-off, which isn't necessarily the best way to establish what happened, compared to a reinvestigation from which criminal charges would proceed.
However a forensic interrogation/debriefing (whether or not including the new legal tools of waterboarding and/or rendition) of Generals Arnold and McKinley would actually lead to who they received their orders from, and who they in turn received orders from and so on.
Of course we can make damn good guesses, but it has to come directly from their statements.
The day there's a sudden rash of high level 'suicides' at the Pentagon, we'll know the culprits on the next level up are directly under threat. |
Since a re-investigation is not going to happen, I was suggesting another way forward for you if you actually believe what you say. If you don't want to take it up, well................ |
Well what? That Arnold and McKinley didn't lie?
And now we're on the third post of meaningless content free drivel.
Bad day today BW? |
No, try to concentrate, old chap, this is a suggestion for trying to get wealthy organisations with a strong financial interest in proving Silverstein was involved in a conspiracy to destroy the WTC complex, to take up the matter legally, the subject of the thread. Truthshirkers claim they have evidence available already, here are people who would value it. Concentrate on that, not sadistic fantasies about interrogating generals. |
Firstly the thread relates to the best way of gaining convictions.
Following up perjury charges in one way to follow the trail back to the rat's nest.
Secondly - are you saying your Prez has legalized fantastic and sadistic methods?
I'm sure he'd be shocked to hear it put quite that way. |
Now, I did ask you to concentrate, but you have not done so, I'm afraid. The thread starter talked about wealthy individuals financing a case against the government, nothing about convictions; have another look.
Bush is certainly not my President, and his attempts to legalise torture are one of his more despicable actions.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love this concept... make a conspiracy theorist video making ridiculous accusations. If they don't sue you, it's because they know it's true.. after all... it's an easy defamation law suit. If they _do_ sue you, it's because they know it's true and want to shut up.
Either way you get to make ridiculous accusation and it must be true! (This is what happens when you use logical fallacies to prove things... you can prove anything is true) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Now, I did ask you to concentrate, but you have not done so, I'm afraid. The thread starter talked about wealthy individuals financing a case against the government, nothing about convictions; have another look. |
I believe this 'approach' was written off as a 'bizarre stance' by the first response.
What would be the point of a making case that doesn't lead to conviction?
No need to answer that, proceed with your bizarre game of fantasy if you wish.
Last edited by chek on Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
This is proof of an inside job? Because they left some interview out of a report? Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | I love this concept... make a conspiracy theorist video making ridiculous accusations. If they don't sue you, it's because they know it's true.. after all... it's an easy defamation law suit. If they _do_ sue you, it's because they know it's true and want to shut up.
Either way you get to make ridiculous accusation and it must be true! (This is what happens when you use logical fallacies to prove things... you can prove anything is true) |
ER, does this then mean no-one can EVER sue for defamation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I love this concept... make a conspiracy theorist video making ridiculous accusations. If they don't sue you, it's because they know it's true.. after all... it's an easy defamation law suit. If they _do_ sue you, it's because they know it's true and want to shut up.
Either way you get to make ridiculous accusation and it must be true! (This is what happens when you use logical fallacies to prove things... you can prove anything is true) |
ER, does this then mean no-one can EVER sue for defamation? |
It means that whether someone does or doesn't sue is not itself evidence for or against the claim's truthfulness.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL responded;
| Quote: | | What if someone started mouthing... "Telecasterisation house fire INSIDE JOB" in print? what would you do if you'd lost close (life insured)relatives and everyone believed some mad suicide muslim arsonist did it?? |
It depends solely on whether I had done it or not. Plus, if my mother-in-law had been a victim I would simply want to celebrate for a long long time and not be bothered by any daft accusations. |
I forgot to mention the mad muslim suicide arsonist who vapourised in the intense heat of your house fire is reported alive and well in Neasden. If you don't sue it will look VERY dodgy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
