| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: A study of the progressive collapse of the WTC towers |
 |
|
A University of Cambridge engineer has completed a mathematical study of the pancaking collapse of the towers, and "his calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down."......"He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings."
So much for all those here who think the speed the towers fell proves that there was controlled demolition. We are seeing the progressive collapse of the "inside job" case, although I have no doubt that "truthseekers" will simply assert that Dr Seffen, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the BBC are obviously all part of the conspiracy.
Link to BBC story |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
if its in the news it must be true, especially if the bbc are reporting it  .
bushwacker do you think a link to a bbc report proves the guy who did the paper right simply because the bbc reported it?
the bbc are not showing how he calculated his findings and his sources of information etc,etc etc. they are simply reporting about it and claiming he is right, sorry to be sceptical but untill people can check out the guys work themselves and see his calculations and logic i aint gonna take the bbc's word for it.
i aint saying the guy who did the paper is wrong, just that we are relying on a second hand source by a network most simply do not trust.
any idea where we can link to his work? rather than just bbc reports?
otherwise your asking people to believe a properganda machine and trust they are being wholey truthful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
the bbc can report what they want, truth or lies, and its taken as truth regardless bacause people do not check things out for themselves. so can you check if this is the correct paper the bbc are going on about so we are all sure we are looking at the correct work?
http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/files/se/SE102002.pdf
ive done a search and out of all the results its the only one that mentions all the key words.
search result:
8. structural engineer
"pattern on buildings and pancake. failures, where floors collapse down .... Cambridge, with presentations from. experts in this developing field. ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky, information about Dr Seffen's paper can be found on the university of Cambridge website here. It says it will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The BBC's reporting of it does not make it true, I think that is obvious.
Troofers often complain that NIST did not look beyond the start of global collapse, now that work has been done by Dr Seffen, who starts from the point that NIST finished at.
This work does not show that there were no explosives used, it simply attempts to show that no explosives were necessary for the towers to collapse the way they did.
People who are really seeking the truth should be welcoming further research in this field, certainly looking at it critically, but pleased that the work has been done. Instead, what do we find on the news page - the faithful rallying round to protect their beliefs.
Bongo - immediate response to ask about WTC7 instead
eogz - he says he is not an engineer, has not seen the figures, but all the same knows it is a "load of nonsense"
John White - looks like a political release, no doubt the figures will be questionable
Roger the Horse - ignores the paper, picks up on a BBC comment
dontbelievethehype1970 - ignores the actual work, asks about WTC7
kbo 234 - expects he has forgotten about debris falling outside the building, then sends an e-mail saying the work might be fraudulent bollox
Sherlock Holmes - obviously with an enormous chip on his shoulder, gets completely hung up on Keith Seffen's Cambridge MA, despite the fact that he has a PhD. Ignores the subject.
QuitTheirClogs - wants to know why NIST did not do this. Appears from his signature to trust the work of a retired theology professor more than a structural engineer.
Thank you chaps for demonstrating once again that troofers are not seeking the truth, they are seeking to justify their beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | marky, information about Dr Seffen's paper can be found on the university of Cambridge website here. It says it will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The BBC's reporting of it does not make it true, I think that is obvious.
Troofers often complain that NIST did not look beyond the start of global collapse, now that work has been done by Dr Seffen, who starts from the point that NIST finished at.
This work does not show that there were no explosives used, it simply attempts to show that no explosives were necessary for the towers to collapse the way they did.
People who are really seeking the truth should be welcoming further research in this field, certainly looking at it critically, but pleased that the work has been done. Instead, what do we find on the news page - the faithful rallying round to protect their beliefs.
Bongo - immediate response to ask about WTC7 instead
eogz - he says he is not an engineer, has not seen the figures, but all the same knows it is a "load of nonsense"
John White - looks like a political release, no doubt the figures will be questionable
Roger the Horse - ignores the paper, picks up on a BBC comment
dontbelievethehype1970 - ignores the actual work, asks about WTC7
kbo 234 - expects he has forgotten about debris falling outside the building, then sends an e-mail saying the work might be fraudulent bollox
Sherlock Holmes - obviously with an enormous chip on his shoulder, gets completely hung up on Keith Seffen's Cambridge MA, despite the fact that he has a PhD. Ignores the subject.
QuitTheirClogs - wants to know why NIST did not do this. Appears from his signature to trust the work of a retired theology professor more than a structural engineer.
Thank you chaps for demonstrating once again that troofers are not seeking the truth, they are seeking to justify their beliefs. |
Funny but I have never seen much sign of yourself seeking the truth there Bushwacker? Faithfully parroting official sources, yes. Seeking to justify your beliefs, yes. Truth seeking, I fear not.
What I find interesting is that an unpublished paper is sufficiently newsworthy to make the BBC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well you see, I think that looking fully at all the evidence, and applying logic and plausibility to competing theories is the best way of getting at the truth, and when I do that I find that the official version of events is overwhelmingly the winner. So many troofers, though not all, seem to prefer misrepresentation, but to me that is no way to get at the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Well you see, I think that looking fully at all the evidence, and ..............the truth. |
Don't you find it strange that some college numpty has to carry out a study to explain why a building fell the way it did after an official body was supposed to have examined all the facts some years before?
What is the most telling part of the BBC report is;
| Quote: | Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. |
All this 'evidence' and not one expert or study can positively identify what these 'squibs' are.
Highly questionable video footage of an aircraft 'merging' into a building where the hole appears to heal itself (and no I am not an NPT exponent). Unbelievable aerial shenanigans by untrained pilots. Front sections of the soft end of an aircraft penetrating multiple rock solid walls. Even stranger, apparently complete aircraft noses passing through buildings and emerging out the other side. Plane 4 virtually vanished after hitting the ground! The list is extensive and goes on and on.
I reiterate that I am merely after the truth whatever that may be - it is just that the official version of events is simply riddled with bizarre inconsistencies. Four planes hijacked with a few knives, then three flown and navigated accurately into buildings by raw unskilled pilots and this is all allowed to happen with no intervention whatsoever????
Credibility stretched don't ya' honestly think?
There is a actually very little hard evidence to support the official version. In fact, perhaps you want to try naming some 'evidence'? I struggle to think of anything that doesn't leak like a colander.
_________________
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 |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its not that scientific to say, this is how it happened, so case closed. Figures and method need to be put forward to substantiate the argument.
I am speaking as a non engineer, however there are plenty of people on this site that can translate the figures for us plebs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eogz wrote: | Its not that scientific to say, this is how it happened, so case closed. Figures and method need to be put forward to substantiate the argument.
I am speaking as a non engineer, however there are plenty of people on this site that can translate the figures for us plebs. |
Indeed you are quite correct, and according to the Cambridge website, "Dr Seffen's new analysis........will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics" so then figures and method will be available for examination. To assume in advance that it is all "a load of nonsense" is certainly not scientific either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | marky, information about Dr Seffen's paper can be found on the university of Cambridge website here. It says it will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The BBC's reporting of it does not make it true, I think that is obvious.
Troofers often complain that NIST did not look beyond the start of global collapse, now that work has been done by Dr Seffen, who starts from the point that NIST finished at.
This work does not show that there were no explosives used, it simply attempts to show that no explosives were necessary for the towers to collapse the way they did.
People who are really seeking the truth should be welcoming further research in this field, certainly looking at it critically, but pleased that the work has been done. Instead, what do we find on the news page - the faithful rallying round to protect their beliefs.
Bongo - immediate response to ask about WTC7 instead
eogz - he says he is not an engineer, has not seen the figures, but all the same knows it is a "load of nonsense"
John White - looks like a political release, no doubt the figures will be questionable
Roger the Horse - ignores the paper, picks up on a BBC comment
dontbelievethehype1970 - ignores the actual work, asks about WTC7
kbo 234 - expects he has forgotten about debris falling outside the building, then sends an e-mail saying the work might be fraudulent bollox
Sherlock Holmes - obviously with an enormous chip on his shoulder, gets completely hung up on Keith Seffen's Cambridge MA, despite the fact that he has a PhD. Ignores the subject.
QuitTheirClogs - wants to know why NIST did not do this. Appears from his signature to trust the work of a retired theology professor more than a structural engineer.
Thank you chaps for demonstrating once again that troofers are not seeking the truth, they are seeking to justify their beliefs. |
that link is not a scientific paper, its just another report, this to from cambridge. what we need is the actual work so people can look at it for themselves to see if it stands up or if its a steaming pile of nonsense like the commission report etc.
why you think im trying to protect beliefs or that i think its a load nonsense i'll never know, especially when i already explain i was not saying the person who did the paper was wrong, how could i ? i have not even seen the so could work and calculations yet, therefore i cannot say i agree or he is correct either. so far all ive heard is heresay from the bbc and a report that shows no calculations or the work so people can look at it themselves, and although i use to trust the bbc at one time and believe everything they said, im afraid im unable to do so anymore, especially when they do not report all the facts on 9/11 and have to make documentarys that avoid some of the facts or lie to paint a differant picture, a bit like yourself where 9/11 truth is concerned.
if the actual paper is due for release then i look forward to it and hope it answers questions and dos'nt turn out to be another commission report or another wtc7 report where we are promised it but it never materialises even after 6 years and being told early 2007. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Well you see, I think that looking fully at all the evidence, and ..............the truth. |
Don't you find it strange that some college numpty has to carry out a study to explain why a building fell the way it did after an official body was supposed to have examined all the facts some years before?
What is the most telling part of the BBC report is;
| Quote: | Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. |
All this 'evidence' and not one expert or study can positively identify what these 'squibs' are.
Highly questionable video footage of an aircraft 'merging' into a building where the hole appears to heal itself (and no I am not an NPT exponent). Unbelievable aerial shenanigans by untrained pilots. Front sections of the soft end of an aircraft penetrating multiple rock solid walls. Even stranger, apparently complete aircraft noses passing through buildings and emerging out the other side. Plane 4 virtually vanished after hitting the ground! The list is extensive and goes on and on.
I reiterate that I am merely after the truth whatever that may be - it is just that the official version of events is simply riddled with bizarre inconsistencies. Four planes hijacked with a few knives, then three flown and navigated accurately into buildings by raw unskilled pilots and this is all allowed to happen with no intervention whatsoever????
Credibility stretched don't ya' honestly think?
There is a actually very little hard evidence to support the official version. In fact, perhaps you want to try naming some 'evidence'? I struggle to think of anything that doesn't leak like a colander. |
NIST's main concern was to see what lessons for building design can be learned from the events, so it needed to look at why the buildings started to collapse, not what happened thereafter. It is interesting that you refer to Dr Seffen, an expert on structures, as a college numpty. Would you also apply that expression to a retired professor of theology commenting extensively on science and engineering matters, and a physics professor whose published work includes "proof" that Christ visited South America, or are they better qualified?
Demolition experts identify the "squibs" as air and dust forced out by falling floors, as you know. How could they be positively identified?
Why do you find the videos of the plane impacts questionable? You surely know all that has been said about degraded video greatly enlarged, and drawing conclusions from it sounds like NPT to me.
"Unbelievable aerial shenanigans by untrained pilots" is a strange comment. The only piece of flying that has been questioned is Hanjour's turn to hit the Pentagon, and it has been shown that can easily be reproduced on a simulator by an inexperienced pilot. Manoevuring a plane in the air is not difficult, it is take-offs and landings which are tricky. If the claimed hijacker pilots did not fly the planes, then somehow they were taken over by remote control or substituted by other, remote controlled planes, and no one has put forward any such explanation that has even a shred of credibility, let alone evidence.
If "Front sections of the soft end of an aircraft penetrating multiple rock solid walls" refers to the Pentagon, you may have fallen into the trap of thinking three rings were penetrated. Those three rings are all one on the first two floors, so only one outer wall was penetrated, once inside there were no further structural walls until the final small "punch through" hole into a ring.
"apparently complete aircraft noses passing through buildings and emerging out the other side" - does anyone believe that? Whatever emerged is generally agreed not to be the aircraft nose, I thought.
Plane four hit the soft earth ofan abandoned strip mine and buried itself.
There has been quite a lot in the news about people being murdered with knives, why do you find it strange that they were used by hijackers?
NORAD was not set up to perform intercepts over land and had only once before attempted to do so, when it took 70 minutes with planes already in the air. That the planes were not intercepted is unsurprising.
I do not think you have shown any bizarre inconsistancies, let alone that the official story is riddled with them.
The official story is the only story that covers every aspect of that day and presents a coherent narrative. No troofer has even attempted such a thing in the six years since those events, and it is starting to look as though no one is ever going to try. There is one simple reason for this, nothing can be put together which would even begin to make sense, even by the warped standards of the highly gullible troofer community.
You ask for hard evidence of the official version, so here goes:
It is certain the hijacker pilots lived in the US, attended flight schools and were noted for being uninterested in take-offs and landings
It is known they boarded the planes.
We have cell or AirFone calls describing the hijacking
We have radar plots of the planes
We have witnesses of three hitting buildings, including pictures of WTC2
We have debris recovered
We have DNA recovered and matched to the victims and hijackers
We have films of the fires developing
We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST
We have the overwhelming majority of expert opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Plane four hit the soft earth of an abandoned strip mine and buried itself. |
-- DUHH...
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rowan Berkeley wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Plane four hit the soft earth of an abandoned strip mine and buried itself. |
-- DUHH... |
ive only ever seen an engine, never any proof of the plane being dug up.
ah i see we are shown a small piece of engine and that makes us relate to big plane in the ground, i see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker kindly replied;
| Quote: | | NIST's main concern was to ……….. of the highly gullible troofer community. |
Thanks for responding so comprehensively, but the problem with this type of interchange, is that it all hinges on opinion and to say we are swamped in 'evidence' is simply untrue. You only view it as evidence because you believe it.
I’ll give you an example;
In 1995, I took a few flying lessons, I think I had nine in total. If I relate that experience to getting behind the controls of a passenger carrying jet aircraft, I would be totally and utterly unable to navigate across several states and then at speeds I have never flown at before, at low altitude, then accurately pilot the plane into what would essentially be an upright sliver. I do remember that lining up the small propeller driven trainer for landing at just over 100mph, with a slight crosswind was difficult enough.
Do you think honestly believe men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane could navigate across several states and find their targets in huge powerful jet aircraft – let alone hit them? I don’t and that is arrived at by researching my own experiences.
As for your list of ‘evidence’, none of it is evidence of 911 happening the way we are told;
I do not dispute aircraft hit buildings on 911, or that certain named individuals lived in the USA, so this proves nothing relating to the actual day. You have been selective about their flying abilities though.
| Quote: | 1. It is certain the hijacker pilots lived in the US, attended flight schools and were noted for being uninterested in take-offs and landings
2. It is known they boarded the planes. |
Is it? There are all kinds of grey areas about the passenger manifests.
| Quote: | | 3. We have cell or AirFone calls describing the hijacking |
Agreed there are supposedly calls made from the aircraft - but the cellphone calls are highly questionable - the calls themselves prove nothing.
| Quote: | 4. We have radar plots of the planes
5. We have witnesses of three hitting buildings, including pictures of WTC2
6. We have debris recovered |
Not disputed – but we are not in dispute about 911 actually happening unless WTC is still standing and the whole thing is a ruse. Not proof of the official version in any way.
| Quote: | | 7. We have DNA recovered and matched to the victims and hijackers |
I am sure DNA exists – how do you know how it was recovered as we are told? Are you saying DNA samples of every hijacker was obtained and matched especially when some of those named are supposedly still alive.
| Quote: | 8. We have films of the fires developing
9. We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
10. We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
11. We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
12. We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST |
Not disputed – but we are not in dispute about 911 actually happening unless WTC is still standing and the whole thing is a ruse. None of this is evidence it happened the way we are officially told.
| Quote: | | 13. We have the overwhelming majority of expert opinion |
Yep, and that’s exactly what it is – opinion not evidence.
As for degraded video, certainly this accounts for many anomalies seen. However, and again we are back to opinion, why does the plane enter the building and there isn’t just ‘healing’, but no apparent broken windows, no falling glass or masonry. You may term this NPT, I am merely posing a question based upon what is seen. I am not an NPT exponent, that isn’t opinion.
You say the fourth plane buried itself in soft earth, the engines, the seats, the tail – okay of you believe that, then that is cool. The ground opened and swallowed the lot, leaving no recognisable parts out on show. I don’t personally have anything comparable to balance that view against – I will leave that alone as you seem to have access to similar incidents where this has happened previously and is widely accepted.
Finally, four aircraft taken over by a few men with Stanley knives. Yes of course people have been died from stabwounds, you could kill someone with a ballpoint pen delivered to the right area. I do question why entire planeloads of people simply sat and allowed this to happen? None had martial arts training? None had anything to hand with which to ‘return fire’? No passengers were ex-military? I pull out a sharp piece of metal and an entire planeload of people simply do as I say?
In summation, you haven’t actually supplied any ‘evidence’, just opinion based upon what you have been told.
Try again?
_________________
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 Sep 13, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Rowan Berkeley wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Plane four hit the soft earth of an abandoned strip mine and buried itself. |
-- DUHH... |
ive only ever seen an engine, never any proof of the plane being dug up.
ah i see we are shown a small piece of engine and that makes us relate to big plane in the ground, i see. |
There is none so blind as those who will not see, marky. There are pictures of other debris, there are witnesses speaking of finding debris, there is the coroner speaking of finding body parts, all of this can be found very quickly on the internet, but if you want to pretend that the engine is all that was found, go ahead, suit yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Bushwacker kindly replied;
| Quote: | | NIST's main concern was to ……….. of the highly gullible troofer community. |
Thanks for responding so comprehensively, but the problem with this type of interchange, is that it all hinges on opinion and to say we are swamped in 'evidence' is simply untrue. You only view it as evidence because you believe it.
I’ll give you an example;
In 1995, I took a few flying lessons, I think I had nine in total. If I relate that experience to getting behind the controls of a passenger carrying jet aircraft, I would be totally and utterly unable to navigate across several states and then at speeds I have never flown at before, at low altitude, then accurately pilot the plane into what would essentially be an upright sliver. I do remember that lining up the small propeller driven trainer for landing at just over 100mph, with a slight crosswind was difficult enough.
Do you think honestly believe men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane could navigate across several states and find their targets in huge powerful jet aircraft – let alone hit them? I don’t and that is arrived at by researching my own experiences.
As for your list of ‘evidence’, none of it is evidence of 911 happening the way we are told;
I do not dispute aircraft hit buildings on 911, or that certain named individuals lived in the USA, so this proves nothing relating to the actual day. You have been selective about their flying abilities though.
| Quote: | 1. It is certain the hijacker pilots lived in the US, attended flight schools and were noted for being uninterested in take-offs and landings
2. It is known they boarded the planes. |
Is it? There are all kinds of grey areas about the passenger manifests.
| Quote: | | 3. We have cell or AirFone calls describing the hijacking |
Agreed there are supposedly calls made from the aircraft - but the cellphone calls are highly questionable - the calls themselves prove nothing.
| Quote: | 4. We have radar plots of the planes
5. We have witnesses of three hitting buildings, including pictures of WTC2
6. We have debris recovered |
Not disputed – but we are not in dispute about 911 actually happening unless WTC is still standing and the whole thing is a ruse. Not proof of the official version in any way.
| Quote: | | 7. We have DNA recovered and matched to the victims and hijackers |
I am sure DNA exists – how do you know how it was recovered as we are told? Are you saying DNA samples of every hijacker was obtained and matched especially when some of those named are supposedly still alive.
| Quote: | 8. We have films of the fires developing
9. We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
10. We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
11. We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
12. We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST |
Not disputed – but we are not in dispute about 911 actually happening unless WTC is still standing and the whole thing is a ruse. None of this is evidence it happened the way we are officially told.
| Quote: | | 13. We have the overwhelming majority of expert opinion |
Yep, and that’s exactly what it is – opinion not evidence.
As for degraded video, certainly this accounts for many anomalies seen. However, and again we are back to opinion, why does the plane enter the building and there isn’t just ‘healing’, but no apparent broken windows, no falling glass or masonry. You may term this NPT, I am merely posing a question based upon what is seen. I am not an NPT exponent, that isn’t opinion.
You say the fourth plane buried itself in soft earth, the engines, the seats, the tail – okay of you believe that, then that is cool. The ground opened and swallowed the lot, leaving no recognisable parts out on show. I don’t personally have anything comparable to balance that view against – I will leave that alone as you seem to have access to similar incidents where this has happened previously and is widely accepted.
Finally, four aircraft taken over by a few men with Stanley knives. Yes of course people have been died from stabwounds, you could kill someone with a ballpoint pen delivered to the right area. I do question why entire planeloads of people simply sat and allowed this to happen? None had martial arts training? None had anything to hand with which to ‘return fire’? No passengers were ex-military? I pull out a sharp piece of metal and an entire planeload of people simply do as I say?
In summation, you haven’t actually supplied any ‘evidence’, just opinion based upon what you have been told.
Try again? |
We are of course both in the dark over much of this, you question the chain of custody of DNA samples, I cannot show it existed, all I can say is that those who take such samples would routinely ensure that such a chain was legally provable. Samples could have been falsified for all we know, but every time something like that is suggested, the circle of the conpirators grows larger. From your own experience you must know that makes keeping the plot secret more and more difficult.
I do not pretend to know how the hijackers navigated, but from what I have seen when I have been in aeroplane cockpits, navigating from beacon to beacon is straightforward enough, or pilots could have been kept alive for the purpose. The buildings hit by the planes were very easily recognisable and much bigger than the planes, a novice pilot managed to repeat the Pentagon flight again and again on a simulator, so I see nothing very difficult about that aspect. However, as you say, that is opinion.
The passenger manifests are very straightforward I would have thought, the actual manifests that is, not the victim lists that some troofers confusw with manifests. They were produced as Moussaoui trial exhibits, so of proved provenance. Where do you see grey areas?
The calls from the planes are hardly questionable, unless you really believe the ridiculous idea the callers could be convincingly impersonated.
Surely no one who has really delved into this really believes any supposed hijackers are alive? That was all sorted out years ago.
I am glad you accept the hijacked planes hit the buildings, not every one does, of course. Like it or not, that is the official version you are accepting.
If you do not dispute, as you say, that:
8. We have films of the fires developing
9. We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
10. We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
11. We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
12. We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST
You are accepting a great deal of evidence that the official version is correct, or that objections to it are invalid.
Expert opinion is of course evidence, challangeable certainly, but nonetheless evidence.
I doubt the degraded video footage would provide sufficient resolution to show broken windows etc, but that is just an opinion.
I do not know of any comparable cases where a plane has hit a particularly soft piece of ground, but there were people who saw the plane beforehand, and saw the smoke, and there were many people who reported debris.
As for quiescent passengers, is this really so surprising? Standard advice prior to 9/11 was to co-operate with hijackers, and the one plane that fought back did so when the passengers had heard what had happened to the earlier planes. A brutal gang can anyway impose its will, as on concentration camp victims, or with "steaming" gangs.
I think you must accept that trial exhibits are evidence, whether or not you think they prove the case. There were 1202 exhibits at the Moussaoui trial, as detailed here or in more accessible form here.
On the other side of the coin, I know of no evidence other than opinion that the official version is wrong. The best it gets is attempts to find anomolies in the official version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Rowan Berkeley wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Plane four hit the soft earth of an abandoned strip mine and buried itself. |
-- DUHH... |
ive only ever seen an engine, never any proof of the plane being dug up.
ah i see we are shown a small piece of engine and that makes us relate to big plane in the ground, i see. |
There is none so blind as those who will not see, marky. There are pictures of other debris, there are witnesses speaking of finding debris, there is the coroner speaking of finding body parts, all of this can be found very quickly on the internet, but if you want to pretend that the engine is all that was found, go ahead, suit yourself. |
great avoidance of the point yet again, and failure to read my words!
ill repeat, i have only ever seen a small piece of engine being DUG UP!
if evidence exsists of any other plane parts being taken out of the HOLE, then please link them. i aint talking about a few scraps on the surface, im talking about the plane that disapeared into the the hole!
a few scraps on the surface certainly does not rule out the theory of shoot down, neither does a small scrap of engine in a hole.
the panam flight that blew up in lockerbie came down in pieces and still resulted in one engine causing a crator in the road with the rest of the plane scattered around on the surface, just like shanksville but with less plane parts, a lot less, which we are told is because the plane buried itself, but ive never seen anything being dug up other than a small piece of engine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I am glad you accept the hijacked planes hit the buildings, not every one does, of course. Like it or not, that is the official version you are accepting.
If you do not dispute, as you say, that:
8. We have films of the fires developing
9. We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
10. We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
11. We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
12. We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST
You are accepting a great deal of evidence that the official version is correct, or that objections to it are invalid. |
Accept a great deal of evidence? I certainly do not.
All the aspects I quoted simply state that 911 happened – just not the way we are officially told. In the quoted parts, it does not say ‘hijacked’ – I agree planes hit buildings, not ones containing hijackers. The point you miss, or choose to ignore, is that I accept planes hit buildings and collapsed – just not the official version. However, I acknowledge your attempt at being flippant. All the above points happened yes – these I do not dispute, none impact on the conspiracy angle.
As for ‘expert’ opinion being evidence – then what about all the experts who state 911 didn’t happen as we are told? Their evidence being somewhat ‘less’ valid than any other? If you accept expert opinion, then you must accept it all – sorry, but that’s the way it works.
As for the reported Shanksville debris, this is not evidence without photographic backup and I don’t mean four iddy-biddy bits of nothing and a ‘flight-recorder’. Why do you accept that a plane hitting the ground at @450mph and exploding would ‘bury itself’?
The cellphone calls were hardly questionable???? Identical calls from aircraft have proved more than difficult to recreate – you know this – the height, the speed all equate to virtual impossibility. This has nothing to do with voice morphing technology.
The hijackers identity could easily have been stolen and those supposedly still alive are alive because their names were simply used and they weren't anywhere near America at the time, it isn’t rocket science. Perhaps you will supply a link as to how the hijacker’s DNA was acquired and matched to those we are told carried out 911, or failing a link, how you ‘know’ this ‘evidence’?
Fireman passing an opinion that the towers would collapse proves the official version? My wife believed at least one would collapse when we watched it live at the time - so what, this all proves the official version?
The analogy you use of ‘concentration’ victims were not held captive with sharp bits of metal an inch long. Show me an article where a bank has been robbed with Stanley knives?
You have supplied no hard evidence whatsoever that points to the official version being accurate and true. You misrepresent my quotes out of context by stating I agree - I have clearly shown this not to be the case. Yes planes hit buildings, yes fires started, yes buildings collapsed - on this we agree, only the HOW this was all enacted differs greatly.
_________________
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: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | I am glad you accept the hijacked planes hit the buildings, not every one does, of course. Like it or not, that is the official version you are accepting.
If you do not dispute, as you say, that:
8. We have films of the fires developing
9. We have pictured of floors dropping in the towers
10. We have pictures of the towers distorting before collapse
11. We have reports that the firemen expected WTC7 to collapse
12. We have a meticulous analysis of the collapse of the towers by NIST
You are accepting a great deal of evidence that the official version is correct, or that objections to it are invalid. |
Accept a great deal of evidence? I certainly do not.
All the aspects I quoted simply state that 911 happened – just not the way we are officially told. In the quoted parts, it does not say ‘hijacked’ – I agree planes hit buildings, not ones containing hijackers. The point you miss, or choose to ignore, is that I accept planes hit buildings and collapsed – just not the official version. However, I acknowledge your attempt at being flippant. All the above points happened yes – these I do not dispute, none impact on the conspiracy angle.
As for ‘expert’ opinion being evidence – then what about all the experts who state 911 didn’t happen as we are told? Their evidence being somewhat ‘less’ valid than any other? If you accept expert opinion, then you must accept it all – sorry, but that’s the way it works.
As for the reported Shanksville debris, this is not evidence without photographic backup and I don’t mean four iddy-biddy bits of nothing and a ‘flight-recorder’. Why do you accept that a plane hitting the ground at @450mph and exploding would ‘bury itself’?
The cellphone calls were hardly questionable???? Identical calls from aircraft have proved more than difficult to recreate – you know this – the height, the speed all equate to virtual impossibility. This has nothing to do with voice morphing technology.
The hijackers identity could easily have been stolen and those supposedly still alive are alive because their names were simply used and they weren't anywhere near America at the time, it isn’t rocket science. Perhaps you will supply a link as to how the hijacker’s DNA was acquired and matched to those we are told carried out 911, or failing a link, how you ‘know’ this ‘evidence’?
Fireman passing an opinion that the towers would collapse proves the official version? My wife believed at least one would collapse when we watched it live at the time - so what, this all proves the official version?
The analogy you use of ‘concentration’ victims were not held captive with sharp bits of metal an inch long. Show me an article where a bank has been robbed with Stanley knives?
You have supplied no hard evidence whatsoever that points to the official version being accurate and true. You misrepresent my quotes out of context by stating I agree - I have clearly shown this not to be the case. Yes planes hit buildings, yes fires started, yes buildings collapsed - on this we agree, only the HOW this was all enacted differs greatly. |
I am sorry I misrepresented what you were saying, I simply meant that there was a great deal of evidence for parts of the official story which you do accept. Parts of what you accept do support the official story, such as the distortion of the buildings prior to collapse. The NIST theory is that sagging floor trusses bowed the support columns to the point that collapse ensued; if you accept that the towers were distorting you are accepting at least the first part of that. On what basis do you doubt that the process that you accept had started, could continue?
If you accept that floor trusses failed within the towers, you are accepting that the structure was being damaged by the fires, you are only presumably disputing by how much. This differs considerably from the normal troofer stance that any such structural failure was impossible.
Expert witnesses have often been known to differ, that does not mean that what they are offering is not evidence. In such cases, they have to be compared against each other. In this case the overwhelming majority of expert opinion supports the official version. One demolition expert believes WTC7 was demolished, having originally come to that conclusion by watching a brief video taken from the undamaged side of the building, and then stuck rigidly to his view thereafter. However, he is equally insistant that the towers were not demolished. Gordon Ross thinks the towers were demolished, and after that the experts supporting that view run out, AFAIK. Jones and Woods cannot be given any such status, I think, and in any case contradict each other. Lists of names on a website mean little when we know nothing more about their opinion.
Why are the Shanksville witnesses who spoke of seeing the plane, and those who looked at the debris not evidence?
I do not accept that cellphone calls have been impossible to recreate, Dewdney says he failed to recreate them, but how hard did he try? An extended discussion on the pilots' pprune message board revealed that many pilots had experience of inflight cellphone use. In any case at least some of these calls were not made with cellphones, but with seatback phones (Verizon AirFones) which were then installed for passengers use. On what basis are these calls to be ruled out?
Identities could have been stolen, but regardless there were people on the flights using those names who had been living as the hijackers were said to have lived.Here is a report on how DNA samples were matched.
Troofers tend to express incredulity that the buildings could have collapsed from fire and damage alone, "never before in history" etc. The firemen's opinion that buildings would collapse shows this is an invalid argument, as does your wife's opinion if she too has an expert knowledge of how buildings behave in fire. This does not in any way prove the official version, but it destroys an argument against it.
Robberies with Stanley knives:
http://archive.falmouthpacket.co.uk/2006/4/6/54463.html
http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2003/6/3/90035.html
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ko7rvQhh4wEJ:www.hmcourts-service .gov.uk/cms/144_10888.htm+%22+robbery+%22+-gun+%22stanley+knife%22&hl= en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2124699.stm
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=7656
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2012/2012284/man_slashed_in_pub_raid_ terror
GBH and murder with Stanley knives:
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/article/icwales.icnetwork12613.htm
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/swindon/display.var.681637.0.ki ller_had_tried_to_murder_former_wife_with_a_knife.php
http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/10/9/124359.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20873954-912,00.html
http://www.geocities.com/satpalramisguilty/ram_civil_lies.html
http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=691&arti cleid=1928197
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1017/murraym.html
http://archive.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/2006/1/5/183781.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950228/ai_n13968612 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am sorry I misrepresented what you were saying, I simply meant that there was a great deal of ..........but it destroys an argument against it. |
Shall we start with my request for;
………an article where a bank has been robbed with Stanley knives?
You give me a slashed bus driver, a robbery at a garage, a 'paranoid' young man who feared his girlfriend had gone off with a friend of theirs slashing the other man with a Stanley knife etc etc etc. The only thing missing was when Sooty found Sweep in bed with Emu, so he hit him with his magic wand.
No-one is questioning that sharp blades are dangerous – you simply avoided any links to great swathes of people suddenly lying prostrate because a sharp bit of metal has been produced. You see now the problem the official story faces? Yes, don’t tackle hijackers, but these didn’t come armed with handguns, they came armed to open boxes. History doesn’t show pretty much anything in the way of pocket size knives being a catalyst for take-over just shopping centre muggings and revenge over jealousy.
| Quote: | | Parts of what you accept do support the official story, such as the distortion of the buildings prior to collapse. |
Parts? Plural type parts? I do? Actually I don’t. You slap on the parentheses and I’m included in a plethora of assumption;
| Quote: | | if you accept that the towers were distorting you are accepting at least the first part of that. On what basis do you doubt that the process that you accept had started, could continue? |
The tower/s had been hit by large fast flying aircraft. There followed a big explosion. I would expect considerable structural impact, combined with additional damage caused by fire, even a spot of shifting. However, no steel framed buildings have ever before collapsed due to fire damage. Three go down in one day and whilst I am keen to see the truth emerge whatever that may be – fire was not the cause of the WTC collapse/s.
You haven’t mentioned WTC7 yet.
There is no point discussing the opinions of others, so expert witnesses end there for me, that includes cellphones.
Shanksville witnesses are who exactly? Can you vouch for their authenticity?
Finally your link to the hijacker’s DNA verification. The BBC article states;
| Quote: | Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.
Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims. |
Two hijackers matched from steering wheel and hotel room samples?????
Surely you can see the flaw in this?? Not DNA supplied from their families or homes but FBI supplied samples from a hotel room and a car. Well, I certainly trust that reliable and obviously genuine matching process (that wasn't a genuine sentiment by the way).
Then we get additional samples to match all 10 – I asked how these were obtained and the source of your 'evidence'? If this is it – then you don’t know either. This isn’t evidence, it is a BBC article with virtually nothing in the way of substance or origin, samples from a hotel room and a car and obtained samples?
The more ‘evidence’ you attempt to supply, the shakier it all becomes. Can't you honestly appreciate that what you view as hard evidence is nothing more than a web of articles and 'official' sources creating an illusion of 'realness'?
_________________
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 |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | these didn’t come armed with handguns, they came armed to open boxes. |
Good to see you back on top form.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Shall we start with my request for;
………an article where a bank has been robbed with Stanley knives?
You give me a slashed bus driver, a robbery at a garage, a 'paranoid' young man who feared his girlfriend had gone off with a friend of theirs slashing the other man with a Stanley knife etc etc etc. The only thing missing was when Sooty found Sweep in bed with Emu, so he hit him with his magic wand.
No-one is questioning that sharp blades are dangerous – you simply avoided any links to great swathes of people suddenly lying prostrate because a sharp bit of metal has been produced. You see now the problem the official story faces? Yes, don’t tackle hijackers, but these didn’t come armed with handguns, they came armed to open boxes. History doesn’t show pretty much anything in the way of pocket size knives being a catalyst for take-over just shopping centre muggings and revenge over jealousy.
| Quote: | | Parts of what you accept do support the official story, such as the distortion of the buildings prior to collapse. |
Parts? Plural type parts? I do? Actually I don’t. You slap on the parentheses and I’m included in a plethora of assumption;
| Quote: | | if you accept that the towers were distorting you are accepting at least the first part of that. On what basis do you doubt that the process that you accept had started, could continue? |
The tower/s had been hit by large fast flying aircraft. There followed a big explosion. I would expect considerable structural impact, combined with additional damage caused by fire, even a spot of shifting. However, no steel framed buildings have ever before collapsed due to fire damage. Three go down in one day and whilst I am keen to see the truth emerge whatever that may be – fire was not the cause of the WTC collapse/s.
You haven’t mentioned WTC7 yet.
There is no point discussing the opinions of others, so expert witnesses end there for me, that includes cellphones.
Shanksville witnesses are who exactly? Can you vouch for their authenticity?
Finally your link to the hijacker’s DNA verification. The BBC article states;
| Quote: | Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.
Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims. |
Two hijackers matched from steering wheel and hotel room samples?????
Surely you can see the flaw in this?? Not DNA supplied from their families or homes but FBI supplied samples from a hotel room and a car. Well, I certainly trust that reliable and obviously genuine matching process (that wasn't a genuine sentiment by the way).
Then we get additional samples to match all 10 – I asked how these were obtained and the source of your 'evidence'? If this is it – then you don’t know either. This isn’t evidence, it is a BBC article with virtually nothing in the way of substance or origin, samples from a hotel room and a car and obtained samples?
The more ‘evidence’ you attempt to supply, the shakier it all becomes. Can't you honestly appreciate that what you view as hard evidence is nothing more than a web of articles and 'official' sources creating an illusion of 'realness'? |
Right, so you are prepared to accept that Stanley knives have been used to inflict grievous bodily harm, to murder and to rape, but you find it inconceivable that they could frighten people into not fighting back against a gang armed with them, in a situation where conventional advice was not to fight back anyway. I see, how interesting.
The reason the hijackers chose to use pocket-sized knives speak for themselves. The passengers in one plane are said by the official version to have fought back anyway, once they had heard what had happened to other planes.
You say “I would expect considerable structural impact, combined with additional damage caused by fire, even a spot of shifting.” but you avoid the point that the distortion observed is exactly accounted for by the NIST theory of collapse, and occurred just before collapse. Your only reason to conclude that it did not cause collapse is your comment “no steel framed buildings have ever before collapsed due to fire damage.” I presume you did not mean to say that without qualification, because it would obviously be untrue. Please try again to explain why you believe that the structure could not have failed through a combination of impact damage and fire, even though you accept that the structure distorted in a way accounted for by the NIST theory.
Like the towers, WTC7 was seen to be distorted prior to its expected collapse. The same question applies.
You may not wish to regard the opinions of expert witnesses as evidence, but that is simply your personal view. The meticulous study by NIST is actually excellent evidence.
I note you also wish to rule out the use of cellphones on the same basis, but that has even less logic. You also prefer to ignore the existence and reported use of seatback phones. Is it too difficult to explain away the calls made from these?
You have not commented on the flight manifests showing that there were people on the flights using those names who had been living as the hijackers were said to have lived
Obviously I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the Shanksville witnesses, but if all the media reports are fake, then the enormous circle of those involved in the plot grows yet wider. Similarly with the DNA matching, on which I commented earlier. No one can give trial standard evidence, which you now seem to be demanding, without access to all the official sources. However, this was of course done in the case of the Mousaoui trial, so I refer you to that. If you can find some holes in the prosecution case given there, I am sure his defence team will gratefully receive it and mount an appeal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
