9/11 - The Legal Initiative

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Mar 19, 2017.

  1. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No civic duty will be done without evidence, and they have no more than circumstantial while the structure they believe in cannot be destroyed within what is seen and heard.

    If this is not true you will post an image of the supposed steel framed core structure in the core area on 9/11.

    Or explain how steel cutting explosives were placed and distributed.

    You can do neither. With the true core, it is all explained including the total pulverization of the contents.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And "inside job" implies that a crime is being committed. So you're not making any sense, a petition for a grand jury investigation is not a crime.

    I'm not sure what exactly your objection is to a petition for a grand jury investigation is but your obsession with your insistence that the core columns of the twin towers were "cast concrete rectangular tube(s)" has nothing to do with that. In fact you may be the only one on this planet who makes that claim. And I'm not sure if you're also applying your theory to WTC7 as well. Regardless, your personal claim is irrelevant to the petition for a grand jury investigation into the destruction of 3 towers on 9/11.

    It seems to me your "evidence" regarding the core structure of the twin towers is strictly your personal lawsuit. That's what you keep pointing to. And again, it's irrelevant to the demand for a grand jury investigation into the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, which is the primary objective here. The question is why would anyone object to a legitimate official investigation into 9/11 anyway since no such thing ever took place? My only theory is that such an objection is based on one's personal terror of discovering that the actual truth is not what the US government says it is. I can't think of any other reason. And that is the very description for cognitive dissonance.
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    4,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure of your point here. I did not watch your videos.

    To explain how explosives were placed, let Occam's Razor apply if we may--they were placed by humans.

    If your point is that explosives were placed when the towers were constructed, that is most plausible and even probable, at least for the nuclear devices.

    As for thermite and/or conventional means, there were projects of "refurbishment" of the elevators and other parts of the towers going on for weeks or months before the event. Under cover of complicit "security", the buildings were prepared during these projects. We know that the weekend before, tenants were advised that the power would be off that weekend, and to take appropriate measures to protect electronic data. That means something.

    Civic duty here means only a search for the truth, and that search is personified by, but not limited to, the Jersey Girls and others with a stake in finding out what happened to their loved ones.

    Controlled demolition is what brought those towers down, is my only point. We were all deceived, and many today have not yet discovered they were deceived.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there the putrid stink of a rat or some kind of "honest" mistake?

    This article was originally published in "Courthouse News":

    https://web.archive.org/web/2019032...ccused-of-omitting-evidence-from-9-11-report/

    and subsequently yanked without any explanation.

    Courthouse News yanks article for its woefully fair and accurate coverage of 9/11 lawsuit

    If you had to pick one example to best encapsulate the mainstream media bias and censorship that have contributed significantly to suppressing the truth about 9/11 for nearly two decades, it would have to be the extraordinary actions of Courthouse News Service earlier this week.

    The first extraordinary action came on March 26, 2019, when Courthouse News published the article “FBI Accused of Omitting Evidence From 9/11 Report,” which — to the astonishment of many — offered fair coverage of the lawsuit filed one day earlier by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine.

    In this rare deviation from the media’s dogmatic denigration of any person who questions the government account of 9/11 (and who refuses to believe that miracles took place that day), Courthouse News reporter Jennifer Hijazi committed the cardinal sin of failing to refer to the plaintiffs as “truthers” or “conspiracy theorists.” She also neglected to question their mental state or to dismiss out-of-hand the validity of their case against the FBI. Practicing objective journalism, she accurately quoted from the complaint and from her interview with attorney Mick Harrison.

    “The plaintiffs’ attorney, Harrison, told Courthouse News that he is ‘cautiously optimistic’ they’ll see the injunction they’re looking for. He said the complaint isn’t about any one particular theory regarding the attacks, but simply ‘to force the FBI to do its job’ and present all the available evidence to Congress as required by its original mandate.”

    The second extraordinary action came the following day, at around 6:00 PM Eastern, when Courthouse News apparently pulled the article from its website. This happened to coincide with the time that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth sent a bulletin to its email list, sharing the refreshingly unbiased coverage with thousands of supporters — except that thousands of supporters were directed to a dead link.

    As of now, approximately 24 hours after the article was first removed, Courthouse News has not provided an explanation for why its article is no longer available on its website. It could just be an innocent technical issue that will hopefully be fixed soon. On the other hand, it is more likely that the article was un-published for editorial reasons.


    Read the rest ...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/516...ly-fair-and-accurate-coverage-of-9-11-lawsuit
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Bob0627, I guess you do not read.

    What was filed is not a lawsuit, and you missed the following two pages which document the fact that federal judges are concealing evidence of treason themselves.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html


    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreassign.html


    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreasign1.html

    How you can think I am against a grand jury investigation indicates you read poorly, or intentionally misrepresent what I share.

    That I need AE to follow the law and submit the info to the grand jury is what I share.
     
  6. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Placement and distribution of HE is the issue.

    The only explanation for pulverization of the contents of the building is hard stone aggregates, sand and gravel traveling at 20K FPs. All here. Please sign the petition.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2019
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    4,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you any theories as to the energy source resulting in 20K FPS?

    When you use the term HE, are you using it in the military sense?
     
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    4,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I admire and respect your pro se actions, though I think misprision of treason is a far stretch, even though it may technically true. Given the definition of treason in the US Constitution, the only crime defined therein, I think it's a far stretch and will somehow weaken your chances of success.

    I also admire the actions of AE911 Truth and the Lawyer's Committee.

    I have read previously about the concrete core issue, and I think you are likely correct. At this point in time, it is an academic subject, and the US judiciary is so much compromised that it will keep you in limbo forever, just to keep the secrets.

    Senior Judge Hellerstein in NYC is a perfect example of how the judiciary follows an agenda, and that agenda is not seeking truth or delivering justice.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I do. I may not always get it right but I do read.

    Well it is a lawsuit. If you look up the definition of lawsuit, it clearly says it's a claim or a dispute brought to court for legal adjudication. And that is what you filed.

    Perhaps it's more like you write poorly. When you begin a post with a statement like "The lawyers committee is an inside job", your tone indicates that you object to their agenda. So if you don't object, you should have worded your post in a non-confrontational manner to begin with.

    AE911T and the Lawyers' Committee are following the law to a tee. They are in no way obligated to file anything they disagree with just because you are making a claim. You do have the prerogative to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of or against their petition. But they have no obligation to do your bidding. I would strongly suggest though that you don't file anything that might muddy up the waters IF you truly support a grand jury investigation. But that's certainly your call.

    That's obviously not true. While your theory may have merit, another explanation for the pulverization of the contents of the building is a controlled demolition, which is what the petition claims occurred. So your theory is not the only explanation.
     
  10. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,578
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    After 9/11 I wanted all student visas and visas from the middle east to be revoked. That would have been reasonable under the circumstances. Right?
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    4,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you work in the Trump administration?

    Clearly you believe what your leaders and mainstream media tell you.

    Sadly, the truth is that they lied to you and me both about 911 and who was responsible.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that would have been a totally unreasonable racist agenda. Why would you want to demonize an entire race of people from such a large and populous geographic area? And in any case, what does your racist phobia have to do with the topic of this thread?
     
  13. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I filed an IN RE: (in regard) with the criminal clerk. No action was asked of any court.


    The below bolded portion of the law they lawyers invoke states that attorneys SHALL, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury.

    18 U.S. Code § 3332 - Powers and duties

    (a)It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.
    (b)Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.
    (Added Pub. L. 91–452, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 924.)​

    So far you did not read my filing properly, you did not read the law the lawyers and AE are using to compel the AG to convene a grand jury.

    You disregard that the judges refiled my IN RE: as a civil action so it could be dismissed, whereas the IN RE: would have sat there in the criminal clerks records for perpetuity. The judges concealed it. You also seem to not realize that one needs to be an attorney with an issue before the grand jury to have standing to submit information.

    The filing that is made by the lawyers muddies the water so bad, and always has, same old stuff, half baked accusations and junk science, (nano thermite does not exist as an explosive) it IS embarassing to anyone knowledgeable in related science or technology. There is no way what I present can compromise a grand jury inquiry. It would be the ONLY proven issue before the grand jury so neither the lawyers or the AG will present it to the GJ and follow the law cited above..


    OMG, you use "controlled demolition" as a label, without realizing I am describing a specific aspect of a controlled demolition that accelerates shrapnel type objects to 5 miles per second to shred everything. BUT, you do not realize the structure that AE describes does not have that shrapnel material.

    I'm done with you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
  14. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, HE = high explosives.

    C4 or RDX. Read my page on the demo. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html
     
  15. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The actual cause of death depends on a structural analysis of the structure that actually stood. The structure analysed by Bazant et al at the request of the WTC commission did not exist. 3,000 death certificates are erroneous. Academic? No criminal non feasnance, malfeasance concealing murder and treason.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well in that case you shouldn't have bothered with the rest of your rant to begin with. The good news is that none of it is relevant to the Lawyers' Committee, AE911T or their petition nor is YOUR filing relevant to anyone, it's only relevant to YOU. Not to mention I was correct in the first place, you do in fact object to this petition, obviously. If the below is not an objection I don't know what is:

     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I don't, the petitioners do. And it certainly is another explanation, yours is NOT the only one.

    I merely pointed to the possible root cause. There would be none of the above without a controlled demolition.

    A controlled demolition causes nearly every object to become shrapnel material so your claim above is silly at best. The structure(s) described are the twin towers and WTC7 and the petitioners' claim is that they were destroyed in their entirety in the manner seen on video via controlled demolition, period. It seems to me your primary objection is that they were not constructed as claimed by nearly everyone other than you. But even if yours is the correct description of the manner or type of material used in which they were constructed and everyone else is wrong, it changes nothing about the petitioners' claim that all 3 towers were destroyed via controlled demolition. In fact, the many corroborating eyewitness claims of molten steel contradicts your claim anyway, not that it matters.
     
  18. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The perceptional errors are so numerous, while the technical appreciation of events is so confused, like confusing the effects of thermite and the molten steel it logically created for a claimed high explosive thermite, makes this discussion moronic. Indeed, not a discussion at all. It is an ongoing correction of errors, exaggeration and distortion.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feel free to leave the discussion anytime you like. This discussion is about 9/11 - THE LEGAL INITIATIVE as the title of this thread states quite clearly. In this case the ongoing petition for a grand jury investigation into the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 AND the lawsuit demanding that the FBI follow the Congressional mandate for them to investigate ALL evidence not previously known or investigated and reporting such to Congress. It really isn't just about sorting out the supporting evidence but it is about addressing it in a legitimate manner rather than ignoring it and/or suppressing it and/or dismissing it. If anything, it's YOUR perception of what this discussion is about that is in error. And it certainly IS a discussion unless you believe YOUR participation in this discussion is just a useless posting exercise and all other participants are also just posting for the sake of posting.

    You have a theory and others also have theories. And that's fine. Your theory may be correct or it may not be correct and other theories that contradict yours may be valid. The reason why there are many theories out there IS because no legitimate official investigation into 9/11 has ever been conducted and as a result, the official conclusion is NOT valid and we're left with no definitive conclusion. And this is why 9/11 is now in the courts in the first place. The objective is to try to find out which theory comes the closest to what actually happened on 9/11 based on ALL the evidence. It isn't to see who wins the 9/11 theory pissing contest.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More information on the FBI/DOJ lawsuit.

     
  21. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmm, bob is gatekeeping and ignoring the EVIDENCE supporting the conspiracy fact of a deception regarding the structural core of the Twin Towers. Typical misprision of murder and treason.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's more than enough evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth about 9/11, quit trying to make this about me just because you're trying to get me to support YOUR personal theory and it isn't working. I had nothing to do with 9/11 or your personal theory. Stick to the topic of this thread or stay out of it.
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    cringe worthy video ...
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  24. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No evidence or residue for either of these substances was ever found. Not in the NIST report. Not even in the fraudulent Bentham Paper. If there had been any indication of RDX, truthers would have shouted it from the rooftops. Instead, it's not too hard to find posts on internet forums where people are accused of being "agents" or "shills" for pointing this out.

    And the poster is correct that these, and only these, could have produced a "controlled demolition".

    There was no CD. There was no conspiracy. Well, apart from the one made by Osama Bin Laden and 19 hijackers...
     
  25. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Omg. They're trying to be "Loose Change." Or "Terrorstorm".
    The "truth movement" is dead and no one cares. That "Loose Change" magic ain't comin back.
     

Share This Page