ideas for a top three proveable crimes, suggestions please

[Fred Jones II]

[Busker]

[Fred Jones II]

[Fred Jones II]

[Fred Jones II]

Another point worth making is this:

Through Sunday nights psyop program they've already admitted a conspiracy AFTER the event.
Most of the evidence so far is regarding acts they've essentially admitted to, after the event.
If you can't prove intent before the event your screwed.

So what do we have that would stand up in court BY ITSELF as it would be expected to.

[Leiff]

How about if demolition at WTC could be proved with seismic events, molten metal analysis and ear/eyewitness testimony, then could those responsible for the security be forced to testify under oath and provide further leads?

There is a call to release all the evidence from http://www.stj911.org

petition here
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399

[Fred Jones II]

[quote="Leiff"]How about if demolition at WTC could be proved with seismic events, molten metal analysis and ear/eyewitness testimony, then could those responsible for the security be forced to testify under oath and provide further leads?

There is a call to release all the evidence from http://www.stj911.org

petition here
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399[/qu ote
]

You cant really compile a case at that level in the hope of fishing for more info, and as mentioned you're still only proving bombs in buildings, for which there are ready made excuses. (the two memes I've mentioned). You would need to be able to prove that the bombs were installed for the purpose of 911, which would be next to impossible. Otherwise it's still all after the fact.

[Fred Jones II]

I started this thread light heartedly this morning in the hope of compiling enough evidence for a case.
I'm afraid that, at the moment, it may put people off researching (I'm quite depressed by it).
I suggest, at the moment, we let it rest until some more evidence emerges (as I'm sure it will).
With a bit of luck it's achieved something, but I feel like a dirty troll-wh*re after so much pessimism.
Keep an eye on the before the fact/after the fact bit - it's crucial and thanks for the input everyone. Every one of you was right, and that's why it sucked having to answer each message, but if I can knock em down that quickly, what would they do?.
You've gotta build a case, not an opinion, and at the moment we've got thousands of items of secondry evidence, but not a case.
Good luck

[Leiff]

We are asking for an investigation to gather the evidence rather than a court case at the moment, hopefully one should lead to the other. Our focus must remain on informing people of the details of 9/11 that the media won't cover. When enough people know, perhaps other whistleblowers will come forward with further evidence...

[Mark Gobell]

You haven't knocked anything down though Fred have you ?

[Batrabill]

how about any of the 11 features of controlled demolition that would occur if, and only if, controlled demolition occured?

You definition of evidence is pretty poor.

This was a unigue event.

Will you listen to one other outlandish theory?

The design of the WTC towers was not as strong in these conditions as th earchitects and structural engineers predicted.

If this wild idea were correct and when planes flew into them, are they:
A. Going to admit that
B Going to claim that their original calculations were right?

So lets look at the evidence, that in my deranged mind has these wild conclusions.

1. Sudden Onset .

It fell over suddenly

2. Straight Down .

It fell straight down (that's the direction gravity works in)

3. Almost free-fall speed .

Sigh. It fell quickly. You all love this but is based on what you think SHOULD have happenned.

4. Total collapse .

It fell right down.

5. Sliced Steel .

False attribution of post clear-up.


6. Pulverization of concrete and other materials .

It fell into bits when it fell down. What did you expect? I've seen first hand 5 buildings blown up. The tower blocks were reduced to rubble by the fall, not the explosives.

7. Dust clouds .

It produced a lot of dust when it fell down. See above - tower blocks produce huge amounts of dust when demolished, NOT from the explosives which cut structural members with virtually no dust, and after everything that can be removed has been removed from the building.


8. Horizontal Ejections .

A lot of air was forced out when it fell down.


9. Demolition rings .

Fiction.


10. Molten Steel .

What is your point? No "molten Steel" was ever produced in a CD.


11. Sounds produced by explosives . (Note this is a false statement - there were some bangs)

After two jets flew into two buildings and set them on fire there were some bangs. Bloody hell. This isn't evidence of anything except how any small piece of information will be dragged in to help this case.

YOU SAY the demolition of the towers is the lie that underpins all other lies and most folks have quite a high regard for science.

That's well put. If the buildings fell down, what are you left with? Oh dear......

Show me this evidence:

Evidence of Thermite
Evidence of detonators, wires, etc.
Evidence that this building should have behaved differently. (Can you note evidence does not mean watching YouTube and saying Wow. It falls down quick doesn't it.
Evidence of the people who wired the building. There are a vanishingly small number of people who have carried out CDs on large buildings. Which one of them did it? Or did the Government simply buy a copy of Demolition for Dummies and then do a flawless job.
Evidence that the buildings were worked on for the time needed to set this up.


Oh and a fair question...you've arranged for two planes to be flown into the WTC. Why do you need to blow it up??????

If anyone says for the insurance, I will explode.

[Mark Gobell]

[Batrabill]

And there's the rub.

Watching YouTube is evidence.


May God have mercy on your soul.

[Mark Gobell]

No.

Watching You Tube is evidence of Watching You Tube.

Videos of buildings being blown up are videos of buildings being blown up.

[Leiff]

[Batrabill]

Did any of these buildings get hit by a large plane as well?

Or, as in the case of 7, have a large buiding fall on them?

You desperately wish to show that WTC was just another normal event that had weird consequences.

In fact it was an extraordinary event that has no parallel, so if the results are not quite as some people expected then it is logical to change our view of what happens to buildings when terrorists fly planes into them, rather than troll off down the wibbly wobbly path to la la land.

[Leiff]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[Batrabill]

remind me, because I have to re-imagine your world. What is the suignificance of th emolten metal?

Never seen in CDs. So ........


Oh holy Christ.........it proves Thermite was used.

The proof of which is that burning things were seen in a burning building.

Gosh.

Double gosh.


That does it..

I'm no longer a sceptic.

Now I see.




You sad sacks.



Right lets get down to it. How many people think the moon landings were faked???

This is a test.

If you say A They were. You are a hopeless case.

if you say B Don't be stupid. Of course they were real. There is some hope for you.

Good luck in this test

[kbo234]

[Batrabill]

The RULES OF THE SITE!

I thought you wanted the TRUTH. This is like being in a golf club. there are RULES.

Don't challenge the delusions of the members.
Don't post in the wrong bit.
Don't comment on the bits you find to be totally false unless you are a true believer.


Or put it another way...go away if you don't agree with us. This is OUR CLUB and we like it this way.

[Leiff]

The significance of the molten steel, is that conventional fires are not hot enough to melt it...

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTra deCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

[Batrabill]

Ah Thermite, sorry Thermate. (This is fun!)
A new technology never before used in CD.

Stephen Jones. The Britney Spears of the Truth movement.

*. Sorry Bollates. hey I've invented a new word. And just by watching YouTube.

The Truth is on YouTube.

Actually I love YouTube, Have you seen the dog that bites its own leg?

[kbo234]

This site is for people who want to see a full independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 set up.
You, Batrabill, have a broad idea of what posters here believe but have obviously inspected little of the detail.
The numbers of people who believe 9/11 was an 'inside job' have been growing very rapidly over the last 12 months.
The government could, of course, reveal the full extent and detail of the controversial 9/11 evidence and discredit each bit as false if they so chose. Unfortunately they have not done this and, it is safe to predict, will never do so unless forced. Their problem is that the thousands of items of evidence present a devastating and unanswerable case that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.
This issue is obviously very threatening to many powerful and influential people. The preferred strategy for counteracting our efforts is to try and suppress the dissemination of this evidence as much as possible. Also to ridicule and attack whenever possible in the mainstream media.

Also to attack sites like this that promote 9/11 Truth.

We have been, and continue to be, afflicted by a deluge of hostile visits from people who, using many different strategies, work hatd at 'messing up' this site. We are well used to it, although lately it is not always a simple matter to discern who exactly is here to damage this site's mission. The methods of the shills have become more subtle and convoluted.

It is no 'theory' that this is happening. It was widely reported from Pentagon briefings that over $300 million has been put aside for exactly this kind of activity.

You seem a naive kind of individual. You criticisism is hysterical and emotional. If you can think of something intelligent to say, go to Critic's Corner and make your case against those who might be interested in arguing with you.

You need to understand that it is only by addressing the evidence calmly and intelligently that you stand any chance of counteracting the further dissemination of information and promotion of the issues around 9/11. You are obviously frightened at the prospect of people believing what we believe. So am I really. It is too shocking, isn't it?

It's got to happen though.

[/quote]

[Leiff]

[Jim]

[Batrabill]

What? I can get millions to attack sites like this?

Where do I sign up????

Actually I have asked some very serious questions on this site and not seen much evidence of evidence.

Therer is a thread started by a 'believer' that asks for the top three provable crimes.

But if you look at it it doesn't deliver very much.

There is an awful lot of stuuf based on the fact that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC 2 'looks' wrong. And if you are rational then you must admit that is not a basis for an argument.

I have tried to point out that from my experience of working with blasters on CD the collapse doesn't look wrong.

The response to that is: what about the molten metal?
What about defying the laws of gravity?
What about WT7?

To which I reply: what about the molten metal??? Thermite Thermate is fiction.
"Defying the laws of gravity" is wrong. It is based on assumpions about how buildings behave whaich are not factualy based, Oh, and I really like "falling faster than gravity" which i read this evening.
WT7?

Honestly I think this is where you all should go if you want to excercise your theories. WT7 shouldn't have fallen down. But then lots of things that arent meant to happen do.

WT7 has two possibilities - the architects got that building a bit wrong, or it was destroyed by CD.

The trouble is; I believe you are all totally wrong about WT1 and WT2. The fell down. So it seems really bizarre that the bad guys should ONLY demolish WT7??

So I conclude that the South and North towers fell down. (See a post on the Critics bit.) And that in the light of that, it is highlt unlikely that anyone organised a major conspiracy to destroy WT7. Surely a fire would have been fine?? And so much easier to start.

[Leiff]

BTW Batrabill, collapses cannot create molten steel - so your theory has a few holes!

[Batrabill]

CD doesn't produce molten steel unless you invent THERMATE