Questions for 911files about his research

[TheLoneBedouin]

911files,

Welcome to the jref forum.

I'm glad you joined because I have questions regarding your research and conclusions.

From what I have read regarding your work and prior statements, you have come to the conclusion that the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data have been "doctored" or manipulated on some level and that the Pentagon security video is "not even reality" and that there is "no way" it is true.

You have also come to the conclusion that flashes in the CITGO security video prove a north side flyover of SOMETHING at the same time of the attack.

Is this still your position?

If not what made you change it and what made you originally have that position to begin with?

Also, just curious about your logic in this regard because it seems to be contradictory....but do you understand how if any government data has been shown to be manipulated or "doctored" as you put it, that this implicates a cover-up/deliberate deception and sets a clear precedent that logically, in the very least, must be acknowledged and heavily considered when looking at other government controlled and provided information?

Thanks in advance for your candid response to my questions.


Also....you are heavily cited throughout Mark Gaffney's brand new book about the E4B.

In fact you are credited as the author of the "Afterword" that addresses CIT's research.

You reference the ANC witnesses as if their identities were still unknown even though you had already seen the interviews CIT conducted with them and released a few weeks before the book went to print.

You specifically used the account of ANC employee Russell Roy (who didn't see the attack jet at all and only saw the C-130) to pose the question of whether or not the "2nd plane" he saw AND the north side approach jet the CITGO witnesses saw was one in the same, and was actually the E4B photographed by Linda Brookhart over DC that had just performed a tree-top level north side flyover timed perfectly with a south side impact of AA77. In essence a 3 plane theory when considering the C-130!

You wrote:

The witnesses at the ANC claim the plane turned back to the left towards the Washinggon DC area. Mark Gaffney and "Pinnacle" have documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area, which was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capital building. Further, Peter Jennings at 09:41, 2 1/2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.

page 296 of "The 911 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America"


But you already knew that there most certainly WAS "more definitive evidence" in this regard that you had publicly acknowledged and even congratulated CIT on!

You knew his name was Russell Roy, you knew he described a propeller plane that turned away BEFORE the Pentagon and banked around and flew away NW over ANC, not across the river to DC where all evidence (including the alleged radar data) says the E4B stayed at all times.

And you knew he independently corroborated all the other ANC employees about the C-130 approaching from the NW, confirming what CIT had already determined based off statements from C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien, fatally contradicting the 2007 released 84th RADES data.

Surely you must see how it makes no sense to once again suggest the honest witnesses on the ground (who independently corroborate each other) were all wrong based off data that you had already deemed manipulated, and while also having accepted a precedent of OTHER government provided data being manipulated as well.

Right?

Especially while simultaneously using the same witnesses to suggest a north side E4B flyover that would obviously have to have been manipulated out of the data!

You must see the fatal contradictions in your assertions and behavior here.

[T.A.M.]

Another call out thread. Yes, very productive use of the JREF forums.

Why do I bother?

TAM

[Drudgewire]

Another call out thread. Yes, very productive use of the JREF forums.

Why do I bother?


Buck fifty house brands at happy hour baby!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/woop.gif

[16.5]

Hey, TLB, welcome back!

Say, last I recall you and the frauds at CIT were going to get me the math that shows that an airliner could actually fly the CIT NOC flight path. Man, even complete sheep like the CIT fans must be wondering, hey, why do Craig and FatAldo refuse give old 16.5 the math? Gee maybe because a plane could not have pulled those maneuvers that it had to have done? Doesn't bother you?

Why don't you and the mutts at Pffft get me that math?

[911files]

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations of my research or "conclusions". Serious-minded, rational people need only to inquire.

[Hokulele]

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations ...


If only more people would echo this first part of your post, CIT would wither and die from the lack of attention, which is pretty much all they are in it for after all. *Sigh*


And welcome to the forums!

[Bobert]

Its nice to see 911files posting, good stuff!
Also nice to see that Mac came back to address TF and his silliness.

[911files]

Thanks guys, but I actually came here to learn from some of the brain power here at JREF. Unlike some folks, I don't have all of the answers.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations of my research or "conclusions". Serious-minded, rational people need only to inquire.

I am not a member of CIT and this post has nothing to do with CIT.

My questions are quite serious and completely rational. I am only going off things that you have said in the past as documented here (http://911files.info/second_plane.pdf) and here (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=158&view=findpost&p=1745061).

Why are you refusing to discuss your own claims?

[Jonnyclueless]

let me give it a try TLB

Hey 911files

I read your research and it seems you think the world is flat and controlled by NWO shapeshifters. It also seems that you believe that chemtrails are being used to keep the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Do you still stick to these claims, and if not, what made you change your mind?

And please don't refuse to address these claim of yours.

[911files]

let me give it a try TLB

Hey 911files

I read your research and it seems you think the world is flat and controlled by NWO shapeshifters. It also seems that you believe that chemtrails are being used to keep the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Do you still stick to these claims, and if not, what made you change your mind?

And please don't refuse to address these claim of yours.

Busted :eek: I repented of all of those things long ago, now I too believe in the tooth fairy.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Well it's unfortunate but not surprising that you wouldn't want to discuss your stated positions in this regard at this forum.

Obviously the members here wouldn't be as friendly to you if they saw you defend your statements claiming all of that government data has been "doctored".

Here is a couple of them for the record. You said:


"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]

"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality. "

source (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=158&view=findpost&p=1745061)


Not to mention the fact that you believe the citgo security video supports
the citgo witnesses' north side claim as shown in your essay linked above that was published in Gaffney's book released only weeks ago.

Frankly I find it strange how you could agree that all of this evidence supports a north side flyover yet you would still feel the need to focus so much angst, resentment, and sarcasm towards CIT. You do understand how a north side flyover of anything at all at the time of the attack proves a cover-up and deception right?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Also, if you wouldn't mind commenting on this quote from page 102 of Mark Gaffney's new book:



John Farmer, who favors no particular theory about 9/11, has also found solid evidence that radar data may have been altered in the case of the Pentagon strike.

[...]

He presentes both physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that a second plane was in the vicinity at the time of the Pentagon strike. He thinks the other plane may have shadowed whatever struck the building. Farmer's paper is relevant to this discussion, because there is no hint in the RADES radar data that a second plane was in the area.

(emphasis added)


That's some pretty strong rhetoric that you allowed Mark Gaffney to publish about your assertions.

Of course he is referring to you suggesting the citgo witnesses and the citgo security video corroborate a north side flyover.

The funny thing is that you also suggested this "2nd plane" was the E4B exactly like CIT said you would, and exactly like they have stated was the entire purpose of the E4B to begin with.

Don't you find that a bit ironic?

[911files]

Okay, I will bite on this one. I have found solid evidence that may have been altered, the operative word is MAY. It also MAY be simply a technical glitch along the way. At this point, I simply don't know. Mark has some strong opinions regarding what happened on 9/11, which I may or may not agree with. He and I have had some VERY strong debates on a number of things and I respect his passion and opinion even if I don't agree with it. And yes, I am still exploring the radar data for anomalies and working with a number of individuals to resolve them. At this point however, we have found NO evidence of omissions or alterations which can be substantiated.

I did not know Craig recorded my phone call with him. I am not Wheelhouse or England. I will be filing a complaint with the Attorney General of California's office tomorrow. That is illegal in California, thanks for the heads up. And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered, the lateral acceleration shifted, and the positional data offset, etc, etc, etc. It is a matter of record in a Court complaint and I don't think anyone here denies that. The Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon.

Here is what you can't stand though. That was back in early 2007, and Craig asked me a number of times to call him, and I finally did. Funny how he distorts that. And in another thread here, I openly admit that when I first sought out professionals to get help, I went to P4T and thier "brother" organization for assistance. But I soon learned that they distorted evidence and in many cases had no clue what they were talking about.

What you do not know Mr. CIT, is that many of the people who post here already know me, and already know my work, and they asked me to sign up, which I finally did. So you are not going to cause me any problems here. We may disagree on a few things, but we fully acknowledge that open and honest debate is healthy. Mutual respect for one anothers opinions even if we don't agree if they are based on solid evidence. That means disagreeing without attempting to attack each others character or ideas.

My issues with CIT is that they attack innocent bystanders who's only crime was to survive one of the most horrible experiences of their lives. My issues with P4T is that Rob Balsamo is a fraud and decided I was the enemy when I called CIT out for it. Have you ever seen people die? Have ever smelled burnt flesh mingled in with smoke? Have you ever survived something and then wonder every day of the rest of your life why you are alive and the other person is not? To publicly abuse people who have is a crime.

Yes, I do see secondary evidence trails in the Pentagon evidence set. Like I said, I don't wear blinders. Down the road, evidence may develop to explain that secondary evidence set, but for now there simply is nothing to explain some of it. Was some of the public release information altered and doctored? There is no doubt in my mind that it was. To what end? I don't know. I'm honest enough to say that.

Tell your buddies at CIT I will be filing a criminal complaint for wire-tapping.

[911files]

I just got through listening to that phone call recording for the first time. I notice Craig did not include the first part of the call (some good stuff there if I recall correctly). And yeah, I think anyone listening to it can tell I had been listening to P4T too much. They will also hear that I continue to say "I don't know". Otherwise, nothing I'm not particularly ashamed of in the call (except I still had a lot of data to collect).

But I am still going to pursue every civil and criminal avenue at my disposal for Craig recording my phone call and posting in on the internet without my permission. They may not be any legal opinions, but I am sure going to pursue any that are open. I know they think it is cute, but all it does is show what unethical and low-down scumbags they really are and proves I was right to dump them and P4T.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

Contradictory behavior like suing 9/11 truth researchers whose work you cite in a brand new book as valid evidence of a deception on 9/11.

Why are you so mad at them?

[911files]

Tell it to the Judge.

[dtugg]

911files, you might want to save the phone call before they can get rid of it if you haven't done that already.

[911files]

I have archived the mp3 and the forum thread.

[Jonnyclueless]

You should thank TLB for bringing this up and making you aware. Good job TLB!

[funk de fino]

This is why I would give no personal info to any of the pft or cit clowns. Despite the best efforts of Turbofan and the like.

I would like to say to 911 files that I read some of your work and commend the time and effort you put in to your investigation and the fact that when you find something to be at odds with what you originally thought you amend your reasoning and do not fall into the MO of denialism (not that I am calling you a truther).

I tried to bring some of your work to this forum in a debate with turbofan earlier but he wanted nothing to do with it.

I hope the twats are charged and made to pay for their cowardly snideness.

[funk de fino]

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

does having it for months make it legal?

[jhunter1163]

911files:

Poster LashL here is an attorney, and no fan of the CIT. You may want to PM her and ask her for some advice.

[911files]

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

[Redtail]

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

What?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Farmer's got a message for CIT:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNQvIV1Kxgs

[T.A.M.]

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

No, it does not escape them. They are simply ignorant ****ers who don't give a **** about people or their personal lives or their right to privacy, or anything at all really.

CIT and PFT are the fringe of the fringe, and the worst of the worst. They almost make people like Alex Jones seem...Tolerable.

I hope you not only bring them to court, I hope you win a large monetary settlement.

TAM:)

[Turbofan]

I went to P4T and thier "brother" organization for assistance. But I soon learned that they distorted evidence and in many cases had no clue what they were talking about.

Rob Balsamo is a fraud.


(disclaimer: Farmer has expressed to P4T that all email correspondence with him is open to the public after posting private emails to his blog, so the below is not a breach of TOS, all email addys below are in public domain and since i am a member of P4T, i have access to P4T emails)
e-mail removed.


See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

Farmer, you post private emails on your blog almost daily. And now you're crying about a phone call which is not illegal to record with one party consent in your state? Not to mention you gave Craig permission (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15715)? You're a walking contradiction.

[Drudgewire]

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

Contradictory behavior like suing 9/11 truth researchers whose work you cite in a brand new book as valid evidence of a deception on 9/11.

Why are you so mad at them?


Tell it to the Judge.


The day "shooting themselves in the foot" becomes a valid substitute for "legitimate research and evidence gathering" the truth movement will be the greatest whistleblowers in history.

[16.5]

Farmer, you post private emails on your blog almost daily. And now you're crying about a phone call which is not illegal to record with one party consent in your state? Not to mention you gave Craig permission? You're a walking contradiction.

Uh quoting the mutts over at Pfft isn't exactly proof that Craig got permission, now is it Turbo fan?

"Coincidently, he's on JokeREF trying to stir up some drama. As a good friend of mine says, "Farmer is a walking contradiction".

I suspect he's getting heat from a certain authority figure, or soldout and is getting a nice pay cheque to spin the truth.

Why else would someone with a history of finding anomalies with government data suddenly change his mind?"

"jokeRef." Hey Turbo, how is that math coming along? You and Cap'n Bob still still counting on your fingers?

[GStan]

Uh quoting the mutts over at Pfft isn't exactly proof that Craig got permission, now is it Turbo fan?

"Coincidently, he's on JokeREF trying to stir up some drama. As a good friend of mine says, "Farmer is a walking contradiction".

I suspect he's getting heat from a certain authority figure, or soldout and is getting a nice pay cheque to spin the truth.

Why else would someone with a history of finding anomalies with government data suddenly change his mind?"

"jokeRef." Hey Turbo, how is that math coming along? You and Cap'n Bob still still counting on your fingers?

I could get a great laugh from that if I didn't feel so sorry for people who actually believe that to be true. Er, wait. I meant to say, I might feel sorry for people who actually believe that to be true if I weren't so busy laughing at them.

[911files]

To clear up a misconception, I am not suing CIT. I might later on, who knows. I have been working the phones with various law enforcement agencies in California, including the Hi Tech Crimes Center. I don't think the boys understand that this is criminal activity.

Right now we are attempting to nail down the City Police agency who should take the lead. Ranke lives in Orange County, but it is just a question of which city has jurisdiction. This will take a few days, but fortunately there are records in the Court system which are helping.

[Drudgewire]

To clear up a misconception, I am not suing CIT. I might later on, who knows. I have been working the phones with various law enforcement agencies in California, including the Hi Tech Crimes Center. I don't think the boys understand that this is criminal activity.

Right now we are attempting to nail down the City Police agency who should take the lead. Ranke lives in Orange County, but it is just a question of which city has jurisdiction. This will take a few days, but fortunately there are records in the Court system which are helping.

I can't imagine those guys have anything worth the hassle of suing over. Criminal charges are probably the way to go. Hand it off to a prosecutor and watch them run with it.

:popcorn1

Crap, I'm gonna need more popcorn.

:popcorn6

[Turbofan]

Such a sore loser.

How is the lawsuit going with the NTSB for missing seconds? :big:

[T.A.M.]

About time someone looked into just what those idiots can and cannot do with regards to their recordings, and witness harrassment.

TAM:)

[Turbofan]

About time someone looked into just what those idiots can and cannot do with regards to their recordings, and witness harrassment.

TAM:)

..when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Be civil and polite

[911files]

Turbo, it is going quite well thank you. The FAA settled out of court and released the requested records, and negotiations with the FBI’s attorney are indicating that the requested videos are soon to be released. Of course we are just now entering the discovery phase, so it will be interesting to see what the Vaughn indices will show. The NTSB has yet to respond, but we are moving forward slowly but surely Turbo. Thanks for asking.

So you are supportive of criminal activity Turbo? So if CIT is making illegal phone recording of witnesses who don't want to talk to them (against California law) and then posting them on the internet (against Federal Law), you see no problem with that? If they use the same illegal methods to attack and malign witnesses who's only guilt is having been a part of something so horrible that most people would rather forget, this is okay with you?

Just want you to clarify exactly what it is you are supporting.

[WildCat]

Farmer, stop blowing smoke...when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
I see your understanding of the law is just as bad as your understanding of FDRs.

The call is covered under California law, it was illegal for Ranke to record the call.

Is there anything you guys do understand? :confused:

[Drudgewire]

Farmer, stop blowing smoke...when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

And yet, according to the state-by-state link to the left of the info you yourself just posted (I'm assuming this is Orange County CALIFORNIA we're talking about):

California

It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from eavesdropping. However, an individual can still be convicted without disclosing information. Two appellate courts have held that there is no disclosure or publication requirement for violation of the Privacy Act by recording confidential communications without consent. Coulter v. Bank of America, 28 Cal. App. 4th 923 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). Marich v. MGM/UA Telecommunications, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone or face-to-face, when a person would reasonably expect their conversation to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. A California appellate court ruled that a network’s broadcast of a news report that used excerpts from secret recordings during two patient examinations violated the privacy rights of the physician, who had a reasonable expectation that his communications with his patients would be private and not recorded. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. 110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html


If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken. It doesn't have to be deferred to the feds simply because that's where the other end of the conversation was coming from (of course neither of us are lawyers so acting like we're so sure of something based on an Internet link would be presumptuous to say the least).

And take note, these are for the most part laws that apply to journalists who have lost these cases despite being able to afford real legal teams financed by major newspapers and other media outlets. I'm sure the gaggle of top attorneys CIT has on retainer will be tickled pink upon learning your cheerleading has landed them in a situation where they so much as have to address any of this.

[WildCat]

If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken.
Nope. It doesn't matter where it was recorded. See here from the same link Turbofan provided but didn't bother reading (surprise surprise surprise!):

The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent. The state’s high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would “impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.”

[Drudgewire]

Nope. It doesn't matter where it was recorded. See here from the same link Turbofan provided but didn't bother readsing (surprise surprise surprise!):


As I said, I'm no lawyer and shouldn't presume to know everything based on Internet links. :o

[Turbofan]

Nope. It doesn't matter where it was recorded. See here from the same link Turbofan provided but didn't bother reading (surprise surprise surprise!):

1. Federal Law requires only one party consent. Being the call happened across state lines, you're clear under Federal Law.

2. Although it is advised (read: not mandatory) to apply the state with the more strict law, Case Law provides direction that the law applied is shown to be the one from the state in which the "injured" resides. In laymens terms, Farmer is SOL here since he resides in TN which requires only one party consent and im sure the Orange County prosecutor isnt going to want to waste CA Taxpayer money to prosecute a he said/he said based on a cry baby from TN, especially since no one was injured (ego doesnt count Farmer). Clearly the Prosecutor will see a cry baby in Farmer.

[Drudgewire]

im sure the Orange County prosecutor isnt going to want to waste CA Taxpayer money to prosecute a he said/he said based on a cry baby from TN, especially since no one was injured (ego doesnt count Farmer).


Considering you're writing all this in support of an organization who are sure a plane didn't hit the Pentagon you'll have to excuse the rest of us for doubting your unquestionable knowledge of... well... anything. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

1. Federal Law requires only one party consent. Being the call happened across state lines, you're clear under Federal Law.

2. Although it is advised (read: not mandatory) to apply the state with the more strict law, Case Law provides direction that the law applied is shown to be the one from the state in which the "injured" resides. In laymens terms, Farmer is SOL here since he resides in TN which requires only one party consent and im sure the Orange County prosecutor isnt going to want to waste CA Taxpayer money to prosecute a he said/he said based on a cry baby from TN, especially since no one was injured (ego doesnt count Farmer). Clearly the Prosecutor will see a cry baby in Farmer.
I love legal opinions from truthers!

At any rate, how's Cap'n Bob doing with that math? Obviously, you aren't doing it yourself or you wouldn't be posting here instead of providing the math.

[Turbofan]

Nope. It doesn't matter where it was recorded. See here from the same link Turbofan provided but didn't bother reading (surprise surprise surprise!):


See here from the same link that Wildcat didnt bother reading...


In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman’s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)

In other words, the one party consent rule was applied. Even though it screwed the prosecutions case.

Wildcat, in your case, the injured resided in CA. CA law protects CA residents. Your case would apply if Farmer recorded CIT without consent. Which reminds me, has Farmer ever posted a private email from CIT on his blog? CIT may have a case under CA law.

In the case i quoted above (more similar to Farmers 'case' and right above the one you misinterepreted on the link), the law was applied in the state of the "injured". it will be interesting to see if the Orange Country Prosecutor applies CA law and CA taxpayer money to protect a resident/cry baby in TN. Especially since he cannot prove "injury". Again, ego doesnt count.

Bottom line, Farmer is crying because he has been exposed and this is his last ditch effort to perhaps save any of his ego. Farmer has called JREFers all types of names on his blog and since he perceives possible "criminal activity" through his delusion against someone JREFers hate more, you all jump on his bandwagon. Good stuff.

It will be fun to watch the OC Prosecutor to tell Farmer to go pound sand and stop his crying.

[dtugg]

Somehow, I am also unimpressed with the legal opinion of somebody who is not a lawyer and also believes in one of the stupidest things of all time.

[T.A.M.]

Guys just leave it, and let what ever law enforcement action is in the works, carry itself out. No point in antagonizing them.

TAM:)

[911files]

I actually need help from Turbo and the CIT boys. I finally found the appropriate agency to handle this and I just got off the phone with him as he was reading the Nick Schou article in the OC Weekly and the CIT forum. I guess somewhere Craig says that he told me the phone call was being recorded. As it stands, I do not recall that part of the conversation and at my age I do have my senior moments. Quite frankly, I had forgotten most of the phone conversation. So this might be true. Regardless, we are proceeding and I have to do what is called a "courtesy" report with the locals here in Memphis tomorrow to verify my identification and information and have it forwarded to the investigator.

In the meantime, if Craig can produce the portion of the call where I gave my consent, then I'll happily forget the whole affair. It is not on the audio that I and the investigator have, so help us out here. I might just be having a senior moment.

[Turbofan]

Ask LashL. i believe she even mentioned the same thing in a different thread on a related issue.

From what i understand,

First thing that needs to be done is to prove injury. Again, ego doesnt count.

Next thing to ask - where does the injured reside? TN USA

Then, which law protects such "injured"? Does CA law protect members of all states? No, it doesnt. It protects CA residents.

Then if the prosecutor does feel he wants to use CA taxpayer money to protect a TN resident, he has to ask was there consent? CIT says yes, Farmer says no. No way it can be proven either way.

The fact the phone call has been published for more than 6 months and Farmer is just now reporting it, does not bode well for Farmers case. Especially since it is clear Farmer is obsessed with CIT by browsing his blog, so his excuse that he didnt see it till now will definitely not work in his favor.

If you guys think the OC prosecutor is going to use CA taxpayer money to protect a TN resident who wasnt even injured, failed to report the alleged violation 6 months after being published.. AND contradict established case law... i guess you guys would also believe the govt story regarding 9/11...

errr.. wait.

:D

[911files]

I don't know, the investigator seem rather pissed that they did the same thing to a Federal Officer.

[Turbofan]

I don't know, the investigator seem rather pissed that they did the same thing to a Federal Officer.


Did you tell your "investigator" about Federal Law regarding taping? Or did that slip your mind as did your consent of the call with CIT.


Farmer, you're on a witchunt because you been exposed. Nothing more, nothing less. Its unfortunate for you that this will blow up in your face as did everything else.

[Drudgewire]

Did you tell your "investigator" about Federal Law regarding taping?

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Drudgewire]

I'm still not sure if I'm laughing more about the notion of asking whether he'd informed someone with a badge about federal law or the fact someone supporting the "Citizen Investigation Team" would have the audacity to use quotation marks to describe a real investigator.

Either way:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Bobert]

Somehow, I am also unimpressed with the legal opinion of somebody who is not a lawyer and also believes in one of the stupidest things of all time.
The more light that is shined on the CIT "wiitnesses" the more it is revealed that the CIT lied and distorted to these people to get them to talk to them in the first place.
Keith Wheelhouse to Craig Ranke
Craig you need help

[beachnut]

I actually need help from Turbo and the CIT boys. I finally found the appropriate agency to handle this and I just got off the phone with him as he was reading the Nick Schou article in the OC Weekly and the CIT forum. I guess somewhere Craig says that he told me the phone call was being recorded. As it stands, I do not recall that part of the conversation and at my age I do have my senior moments. Quite frankly, I had forgotten most of the phone conversation. So this might be true. Regardless, we are proceeding and I have to do what is called a "courtesy" report with the locals here in Memphis tomorrow to verify my identification and information and have it forwarded to the investigator.

In the meantime, if Craig can produce the portion of the call where I gave my consent, then I'll happily forget the whole affair. It is not on the audio that I and the investigator have, so help us out here. I might just be having a senior moment.
I have seen your results resolving issues on 9/11 truth. These guys will be in a lot of trouble if you have the same success on this issue due to your tenacity at resolving issues.

Turbofan thinks we cannot change our minds and see Balsamo is a fraud, not a seeker of truth.

[Bobert]

I'm still not sure if I'm laughing more about the notion of asking whether he'd informed someone with a badge about federal law or the fact someone supporting the "Citizen Investigation Team" would have the audacity to use quotation marks to describe a real investigator.

Either way:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
NOTE TO SELF:
The CIT will go to LE to make sure they can record legally YET wont take their ground breaking eiath shattering evidence to a court.

[Turbofan]

I'm still not sure if I'm laughing more about the notion of asking whether he'd informed someone with a badge

You sure its someone with a badge? Or do you just take Farmers word for it Although he never mentioned a Detective, for all you know it could be a private investigator, or none at all. Farmer is prone to lying and contradictions. Listen to the call :) Are you a critical thinker?

about federal law

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/)

Do you know what that above quote means Drudge? It means the "investigator" (if there really is one) can be as pissed as he wants, its still not illegal.

I see that since Farmer realizes he doesnt have much of a case, he is on a witchunt to find out if there are any other violations. Craig is right when he said, "Whats next, is Farmer gonna dig up my 1995 jaywalking ticket?"

Tell me, how many JREF cheerleaders would support that? Im thinking 90% of you. You're your own worst enemy... hilarious.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I see that since Farmer realizes he doesnt have much of a case, he is on a witchunt to find out if there are any other violations. Craig is right when he said, "Whats next, is Farmer gonna dig up my 1995 jaywalking ticket?"

I called the fashion police on Ranke for that god awful way he does his hair.

[Drudgewire]

That that above quote means Drudge? It means the "investigator" (if there really is one) can be as pissed as he wants, its still not illegal.

I see that since Farmer realizes he doesnt have much of a case, he is on a witchunt to find out if there are any other violations. Craig is right when he said, "Whats next, is Farmer gonna dig up my 1995 jaywalking ticket?"

Tell me, how many JREF cheerleaders would support that? Im thinking 90% of you.


I said it at least twice this thread, but since you only see and hear what you want to and that rarely has anything to do with reality, I'll say it again:

Using the Internet to claim legal knowledge is a VERY dangerous game, especially considering how much money has been lost by REAL legal experts who thought they understood the wording of the law.


You're your own worst enemy... hilarious.


STOP BREAKING OUR IRONY METERS!! THEY DON'T GROW ON TREES YOU KNOW!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/fist4su.gif

[Turbofan]

Turbofan thinks we cannot change our minds and see Balsamo is a fraud, not a seeker of truth. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Ron "pomeroo" Weick doesnt seem to think Balsamo is a fraud.

I just received another call from Rob Balsamo. He was quite civil and impressed me with his sincerity in wanting a substantive debate on the FDR and related matters. I agreed to apologize for lumping him in with [others i feel are frauds] and promised I would continue my effort to find opponents for tomorrow's CLOUT

What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3704117&postcount=105



By the way Beachnut, why didnt you step up to the plate to debate P4T that night? Oh, thats right, you claimed there is nothing to debate. But yet you spent the whole night behind your screen on JREF doing just that, like you do everyday.

Bottom line, Rob Balsamo and the numerous aviation professionals at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core can be verified as such at faa.gov. You and your so-called 'experts' cannot. Who exactly is the "fraud"?

[dtugg]

What are you doing on this thread, Turbofan? Shouldn't you be pounding out the flightpath that is consistent with CIT witnesses and proven possible using math?

[DGM]

Ron "pomeroo" Weick doesnt seem to think Balsamo is a fraud.




By the way Beachnut, why didnt you step up to the plate to debate P4T that night? Oh, thats right, you claimed there is nothing to debate. But yet you spent the whole night behind your screen on JREF doing just that, like you do everyday.

Bottom line, Rob Balsamo and the numerous aviation professionals at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core can be verified as such at faa.gov. You and your so-called 'experts' cannot. Who exactly is the "fraud"?
If you don't mind me asking. When can we expect your experts to make any kind of mark in the aviation world with their "research". I think I must have missed the repercussions from the huge impact that they've had so far. Could you direct me to these "accomplishments"?

[Drudgewire]

Ron said he was civil. You don't have to be uncivil to be a fraud. CIT simply happens to be both. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/) page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

[dtugg]

Ron said he was civil. You don't have to be uncivil to be a fraud. CIT simply happens to be both. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/) page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

In this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/951041/1/) at the LCF. Of course, we should believe what Craig says because he is such a super honest guy.

[911files]

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/) page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

I have not seen it for myself Drudgewire, that is what the investigator told me. Contrary to CIT belief, I don't waste my time over there and like you, can't get far in the madness when I do go over. So what page or thread he was looking at I could not tell you, but I believe it was on the CIT forum.

[beachnut]

Ron "pomeroo" Weick doesnt seem to think Balsamo is a fraud.




By the way Beachnut, why didnt you step up to the plate to debate P4T that night? Oh, thats right, you claimed there is nothing to debate. But yet you spent the whole night behind your screen on JREF doing just that, like you do everyday.

Bottom line, Rob Balsamo and the numerous aviation professionals at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core can be verified as such at faa.gov. You and your so-called 'experts' cannot. Who exactly is the "fraud"?
How do you debate pure dirt dumb stupid ideas like 77 did not hit the Pentagon? You have no alternative for the damage, no way to refute the DNA data, no understanding of the FDR, not a clue what the NTSB did, no clue what the FAA did, no clue what happen. Your group of failed 9/11 idea pilots have zero theories!

I am waiting for your evidence. 7 years, no evidence. Debate that you FDR non-expert hiding behind implications of lies you adopt as fact.

How can you debate Balsamo? He has no expertise in anything except 11.2 G bad physics. He can't even correct that page. How can he make rational debate when he said he will gladly kill me when 9/11 truth wins? His bans all who tell the truth at p4tf. Check it out, all that is left are people who believe idiot ideas on 9/11.

Balsamo has all my FAA information; so your are wrong about the faceless stuff; proven wrong again.

Oops, let me check; I do have a face. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/37org.jpgbut I can't find the seat pin... oops - like the flag? We had no FDR in the tweet ...

Balsamo experts do not have evidence to support his implications of lies, non-flight paths, and silly 11.2 G physics. Zero expert can mount any support for Balsamo's ideas on 9/11; failed ideas.


Why is Farmer able to do research and then understand Balsamo is a fraud? Why is there only one real 9/11 truther? There can be only one?


The p4t news releases have been a failure! So what do you have after 7 years, no theories, just a pilot who is so paranoid and ignorant on a broad range of topics, he resorts to distorting the truth so he can sell junk ideas on the internet and run a forum where he is the "9/11 truth NAZI" banning those who question his failed ideas.

I love the 11.2 G physics! A great example of failed math cached for posterity; you can show your children's children the failed math of Balsamo and either explain how you recovered from believing terminally stupid ideas, or how to mess up math and be just like Balsamo. The choice is yours; gain knowledge and pursue sound judgment, or follow Balsamo further down the pit of ignorance on 9/11.

[Turbofan]

I said it at least twice this thread, but since you only see and hear what you want to and that rarely has anything to do with reality, I'll say it again:

Using the Internet to claim legal knowledge is a VERY dangerous game, especially considering how much money has been lost by REAL legal experts who thought they understood the wording of the law.




CFR TITLE 18: PART I: CHAPTER 119: § 2511(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.


Federal Wiretapping Law of 1968. Look it up "critical thinker" (who takes Farmer at his word regarding an "investigator" and thinks it means a badge)

This is why there is so much controversy currently over Federal Wiretapping of Americans without any party consent, due to, you guessed it, 9/11.

Drudge, you're not very good at this...

[Drudgewire]

In this thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/951041/1/) at the LCF. Of course, we should believe what Craig says because he is such a super honest guy.


"Above reproach." "Salt of the earth." "A scholar and a gentleman."

Oh sorry, I was watching a documentary on Ron Jeremy. Who were were talking about again?

[LashL]

..when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

This is not accurate.

If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken. It doesn't have to be deferred to the feds simply because that's where the other end of the conversation was coming from

This is accurate.

1. Federal Law requires only one party consent. Being the call happened across state lines, you're clear under Federal Law.

This is not accurate.

2. Although it is advised (read: not mandatory) to apply the state with the more strict law, Case Law provides direction that the law applied is shown to be the one from the state in which the "injured" resides. In laymens terms, Farmer is SOL here since he resides in TN which requires only one party consent

This is not accurate. See below.

See here from the same link that Wildcat didnt bother reading...
In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman’s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)

This case is not on point in any way, shape or form with the matter currently under discussion, and is wholly inapplicable. The case you cited was a libel action, not a prosecution under a state penal code.

In other words, the one party consent rule was applied. Even though it screwed the prosecutions case.

This is not accurate. There was no prosecutor. It was a civil action.

In the case i quoted above (more similar to Farmers 'case' and right above the one you misinterepreted on the link), the law was applied in the state of the "injured". it will be interesting to see if the Orange Country Prosecutor applies CA law and CA taxpayer money to protect a resident/cry baby in TN. Especially since he cannot prove "injury".

This is not accurate. The case you cited is not at all similar to the matter currently under discussion, and while conflicts of law are often at issue in civil litigation, they are rarely an issue in criminal/penal law. In civil actions, there are numerous considerations about the appropriate jurisdiction for an action and numerous considerations about which jurisdiction's law to apply in matters where cross-jurisdictional issues arise. But in criminal/penal matters, the location where an alleged offence occurs is the appropriate jurisdiction. If offences occurred in the matter presently under discussion, the location of the offences is the place where a surreptitious recording was made in violation of the California penal code, and the place where publishing of such intercepted material took place in violation of the California penal code.

First thing that needs to be done is to prove injury.

This is not accurate.

Next thing to ask - where does the injured reside?

This is not accurate.

Then, which law protects such "injured"?

This is not accurate.

Then if the prosecutor does feel he wants to use CA taxpayer money to protect a TN resident, he has to ask was there consent?

The prosecutor's duty is to uphold the laws of California, without regard to where the alleged victim of the crime perpetrated by a California resident happens to live.

The fact the phone call has been published for more than 6 months and Farmer is just now reporting it, does not bode well for Farmers case.

The length of time that it has been published really has no bearing on the matter unless there is a statutory limitation period on the offence under California law, particularly if the person complaining was not aware of the existence of the recording until recently. Even if there is a prescribed limitation period, there is also the matter of discoverability, which often operates to extend a limitation period in various circumstances.

You seem to be confusing and conflating the California Penal Code (public law) with civil actions (private law) and mistakenly thinking that they are interchangeable. They are not.

In short:

If you live in a one-party-consent state, and you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it without the consent of other parties to the conversation.

If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)

[Turbofan]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]How do you debate pure dirt dumb stupid ideas like 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

Why do you spend everyday doing just that on the JREF?

You have no alternative for the damage,

Not our burden to offer a theory. It is up to the govt to prove theirs.

no way to refute the DNA data,

We never refuted it nor did we embrace it. We dont find the word of the govt as gospel like you. So far, the govt refuses to provide DNA records and chain of custody.

no understanding of the FDR

Said the anonymous man from behind his screen who refuses to call L3 and the NTSB and inform them they are wrong regarding impact time and altitude plot.

not a clue what the NTSB did

See above reply


Debate that you FDR non-expert hiding behind implications of lies you adopt as fact.

English please...

He can't even correct that page.

You may want to check the page as its been corrected for months. You even debated it a few times (the corrections), must have slipped your mind, 'senior moment' like Farmer i suppose. Im not surprised you dont source your claims though as you'll readily expose such lies to your lurkers. So i'll do it for you...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html


How can he make rational debate when he said he will gladly kill me when 9/11 truth wins?

Flat out lie and you will never be able to quote it. Please quote Rob Balsamo saying he will kill Beachnut when "9/11 truth wins"! Why do you lie so much Beachnut?

His bans all who tell the truth at p4tf.

Im an admin at P4T forum. You refuse to sign up. You been invited many times. Its clear you cannot debate without lies, libel and personal attacks, perhaps that is why you refuse to sign up and realize you'll be banned for such a debate style?

Balsamo has all my FAA information; so your are wrong about the faceless stuff; proven wrong again.

All we have is a name you claim to be which you refuse to post publicly. Since you have been caught in so many lies, who is to say this isnt another?

Oops, let me check; I do have a face.

Yeah, lots of pilot images on google.. I can do that too.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=pilot&gbv=2

Can you guess which is me? :D

the rest of your post is the same ol BS.

Hugs and kisses to you Beachnut. Try not to have so much hate in your soul, it shortens life span. :)

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

You sure its someone with a badge? Or do you just take Farmers word for it Although he never mentioned a Detective, for all you know it could be a private investigator, or none at all. Farmer is prone to lying and contradictions. Listen to the call :) Are you a critical thinker?

I have not seen where Farmer seems to have lied. Could you please point this out? While you are at it tell me how he has "contradicted" himself.

Just a hint; saying that he used to be a truther is not contradicting yourself it's realizing you're wrong.

[Drudgewire]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoopyDance.gif

[Turbofan]

This is not accurate.


If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)


Thanks for your input LashL. I'll guess we'll see what happens in court.

By the way, i see by your avatar you live in Toronto. Ever practice law in the US?

[Myriad]

This is not accurate.


This is accurate.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate. See below.


This case is not on point in any way, shape or form with the matter currently under discussion, and is wholly inapplicable. The case you cited was a libel action, not a prosecution under a state penal code.


This is not accurate. There was no prosecutor. It was a civil action.


This is not accurate. The case you cited is not at all similar to the matter currently under discussion, and while conflicts of law are often at issue in civil litigation, they are rarely an issue in criminal/penal law. In civil actions, there are numerous considerations about the appropriate jurisdiction for an action and numerous considerations about which jurisdiction's law to apply in matters where cross-jurisdictional issues arise. But in criminal/penal matters, the location where an alleged offence occurs is the appropriate jurisdiction. If offences occurred in the matter presently under discussion, the location of the offences is the place where a surreptitious recording was made in violation of the California penal code, and the place where publishing of such intercepted material took place in violation of the California penal code.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate.


The prosecutor's duty is to uphold the laws of California, without regard to where the alleged victim of the crime perpetrated by a California resident happens to live.


The length of time that it has been published really has no bearing on the matter unless there is a statutory limitation period on the offence under California law, particularly if the person complaining was not aware of the existence of the recording until recently. Even if there is a prescribed limitation period, there is also the matter of discoverability, which often operates to extend a limitation period in various circumstances.

You seem to be confusing and conflating the California Penal Code (public law) with civil actions (private law) and mistakenly thinking that they are interchangeable. They are not.

In short:

If you live in a one-party-consent state, and you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it without the consent of other parties to the conversation.

If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)


Now that's Legaltainment™!

Under the circumstances, I'll refrain from offering my own opinion on the matter, and instead pass along (via Turbofan, if he'll be good enough to convey it, or to CIT directly if they read this thread) the only advice it would be ethical for me to give:

Get a good lawyer.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jhunter1163]

I get all quivery when Lash uses her lawyer voice.

[jhunter1163]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoopyDance.gif



FYI, Lash is a woman.

[Myriad]

I don't know, the investigator seem rather pissed that they did the same thing to a Federal Officer.


Quoted for emphasis, in reference to my previous post.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Turbofan]

By the way, does anyone know if the "prostitute" or Globe International was prosecuted by PA for violating their recording/consent laws? According to LashL, they should have been prosecuted. I havent been able to turn up anything, yet.

[Drudgewire]

FYI, Lash is a woman.




I KNEW that. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

Well, the victory dance has been downgraded from "Snoopy" to "Snoop Dogg."

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoop.gif

[~enigma~]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoopyDance.gif
SHE.

[Drudgewire]

SHE.


Six minutes too late. :p

[Turbofan]

I KNEW that. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

Well, the victory dance has been downgraded from "Snoopy" to "Snoop Dogg."

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoop.gif


Considering LashL has shown more than hatred for CIT, I wouldnt be so quick to do a victory dance till the verdict is in from the OC Prosecutor. I also didnt realize she is in Toronto. Although it shouldnt matter much as does her bias.

But I will admit I was wrong in reading her past interpretations. I'd look for them to quote, but I suppose none of this matters on a message board. The victory dance will come for one of us eventually though... :)


I'll still hold to my theory that the OC Prosecutor will tell Farmer to pound sand and stop his crying.

By the way 911Files, what type of "investigator" do you have? A guy with a badge as deduced by Drudge? Is it a detective? If so, which PCT in the OC? The first clue is you said "agency" instead of precinct. Sounds like a private investigator. If part of a Federal Agency, well then he should be familiar with CFR Title 18 when recording other Federal Officers.

[Tricky]

This thread is going downhill in a hurry. Switching to moderated status.

[LashL]

Ever practice law in the US?

I have done quite a lot of cross-border litigation, thanks for asking.

By the way, does anyone know if the "prostitute" or Globe International was prosecuted by PA for violating their recording/consent laws?

I have no idea. You'll have to check the state courts to find out.

According to LashL, they should have been prosecuted.

I did not say any such thing.

[TheLoneBedouin]

911files,

You just stated in this thread:


I have found solid evidence that may have been altered, the operative word is MAY.


The words "solid" and "may" make for a rather interesting contrast. So is it solid or not? But you really answered this question further as you continued...


And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered.


Ahh ok so you admit that the NTSB data definitely HAS been altered. Thanks for that.

You continued...


Was some of the public release information altered and doctored? There is no doubt in my mind that it was.


Once again reaffirming this belief that you obviously have held since early 2007 and possibly before. Curious though....do you understand how this would set a precedent wherein other government provided data should be automatically considered suspect?

If not why? Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime?

You went on...


The Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon.


Really?

Care to make a poll thread to see how many members here think the Pentagon security gate camera footage has "issues"? Any members here care to back him up on this? And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that you currently think the security camera has also been "doctored" just as you believe regarding the NTSB data?

Now you go on to say "that's a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon" but you also just sent an essay to publish in Gaffney's book that asserts just that. And as Gaffney said you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it.

The physical evidence he was referring to of course is the citgo security video that you believe supports the citgo witnesses' independently corroborated claim of a plane on the north side.

So please help me understand why you would allow these assertions to be published in this new book if you don't believe them, or think that evidence is "wanting" for this as you said in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4255140&postcount=3187).

I really find it odd that you could possibly think that the citgo security video corroborates the unanimous claim of the citgo witnesses (and many more) yet still call corroboration of evidence on this level "wanting".

To sum it up....you agree that government data has been altered, you agree that the citgo video confirms the citgo witnesses' north side account, you have no problem publishing these assertions in a distributed book as completely valid and evidence based, and naturally you must understand that all of this points to a military deception on 9/11.....yet you insist on quitting the "truth movement" and remaining hostile towards CIT who uncovered the majority this evidence that you have asserted as valid and corroborated?

Correct?

[chillzero]

To support the switch to moderated status I have moved posts to AAH, and rejected some responses. Please stop the bickering about CIT, and personalised posts.

Keep this thread civil and on topic from this point.

[911files]

LB, this will be my final response on this thread, because I agree with Chillzero. If it was constructive, I would participate, but it is more argumentative than anything.

Yes LB, as I have already said, many of these folks I have communicated with outside of the forum, and we agree there remains a lot to be learned about the events of 9/11. There are anomalies in a lot of the government data and if an applicable thread devoted to any single one opens, I will happily discuss it.

Here is the difference that escapes you. An anomaly in the data set does not mean "inside job" or alteration for nefarious purposes. There can often be technical explanations for the same anomaly (or simply someone messed up). I have learned over the past several years that if a person keeps digging, some questions can be resolved without any such speculation. I have seen these folks work with the NTSB animation to great lengths for example. They do not deny that the heading is greater than the FDR reports, but they don't go from that observation to ... "911 is an inside job". The key is, they should not make that jump, and through thorough research a number of alternative explanations have been offered. Some I agree with, some I do not, but they remain valid explanations non-the-less.

These are very intelligence folks residing here. If you give them evidence in the terms an intelligent person can work with, then I think like me they would love to explore it. But if you give them an anomaly in the data and scream "911 is an inside job", they are going to rightly tell you that you are...well pick the response.

So yes, it may surprise you, but JREF folks are rational, thinking individuals. Honest folks can disagree about what the data means and work together to find a common resolution, unless one of them is wearing the blinders of seeing everything as evidence of a pre-determined conclusion.

[Alareth]

Not our burden to offer a theory. It is up to the govt to prove theirs.

Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works.

[TheLoneBedouin]

911files,

So does that mean you changed your position from yesterday when you said there was "no doubt" in your mind that publicly released information was "altered and doctored"?

Obviously that is a far cry from an "anomaly". This thread is about your previous statements and research. Nobody has claimed that an innocent technical anomaly = 9/11 was an inside job so I'm not sure why you went off on that tangent. Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime and set a precedent wherein all forthcoming data from the implicated party should be considered automatically suspect?

But you have gone much further than that. You only recently sent an essay to be published in a distributed book asserting a north side flyover and you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it.

Obviously you must see this evidence as valid since you cited it and had it published only weeks ago. Certainly you understand how a north side flyover of anything at all at the same time of the attack proves a deliberate deception and cover-up on 9/11.

Right?

[twinstead]

Artificial burden of proof shifting ROCKS!

[Drudgewire]

Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works.


It's actually quite telling in regards to what the most lofty goals of the movement actually are. If their purpose/mission was discover "what really happened" and get the word out... or for that matter to truly gain insight about the events leading up to 9/11 and the day itself, they'd start with a hypothesis and work towards proving it. For everything that can be said about the early "names" in the movement, there was at least a blueprint towards this end.

But "it's up to the government to prove their story" is not only circular, it's a clear indication the "just asking questions" nu-twoof contingent is perfectly content to simply throw stones at the wall. Considering, even if there WAS a conspiracy, they've successfully stifled it to the point the already miniscule amount of people who ever believed otherwise dwindles by the day, what would the conspirators POSSIBLY have to gain by attempting to placate the tiny percentage of people who not only won't believe anything they say regardless, but who haven't provided a shred of evidence worth answering to?

I was talking to a girl the other day who wasn't really educated to the facts on 9/11, and she brought up things like "stand-down orders" and a few of the other long-debunked issues. I told her the same thing I've said on here a hundred times: the SECOND any kind of valid evidence which can honestly contradict everything we do know, I'll be back on the CT bus quicker than you can say "cover-up."

But TLB's response, despite the furor a lot of truthers have brought me over the last few years, did something far worse: It saddened me. It belies a motivation perhaps not as sinister as some of the more paranoid "critical thinkers" think twoofers have... but it's far more pathetic.