Okay, CTers, here's the best offer you're ever going to get.

[LashL]

The offer is to take your evidence, conduct interviews of all of your witnesses, provide tapes and transcripts pf same, package everything up professionally and within all of the relevant rules of procedure, and present it all to a D.A. on your behalf.

You don't have to lift a finger except to provide contact information and links or docs that you wish to add to the package for the D.A.



This thread originates from a post by Russell Pickering and my response to it on another thread. In a nutshell, Russell put forward a scenario about presenting evidence to a D.A. and I offered to take all of the evidence he purports to have, assess it, interview all of the witnesses and present it all to a D.A.

Russell posted:


Imagine that I am the District Attorney and prove to me explosives were not used.

I have:

1) 40 some firefighter witnesses.

2) Video of squibs similar to CD.

3) 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed straight down all on the same day in the same place for the first time in history. At least one not hit by a plane.

4) Civilian eyewitnesses who reported explosions.

5) A non explanation of WTC 7 from FEMA.

P.S. Don't bring your NIST reports because they are not admissible as evidence in a court. They also failed to test for explosives even if they were.

Russell



I responded to his post, offering to take his evidence, interview all of the potential witnesses, and take all of the results to a D.A.

The following is a slightly edited version of my original post in response to Russell's, edited only to remove anything that could be viewed as provisional because I want it to be clear that I make this offer without what might have been perceived as reservations by anyone looking for an out, and because I don't know the code that makes the text appear with letters and words struck out to make it obvious on its face.

Here's a better idea, Russell.

I will take it to a D.A. for you.

Here's all you have to do. Present your evidence to me in good faith (privately, if you wish) and I will, in good faith, assess it, interview all of those you identify as potential witnesses and present all of the evidence and verbatim transcripts of all of the interviews in their entirety to the D.A. on your behalf.

To facilitate this, and following your numbering scheme above, all you have to do is:

1) Provide me with the statements or willsays or contact information of your 40 witnesses and I will interview each and every one of them and pass all of the details on to the D.A.

2) Provide the video, and a willsay or contact information of the expert witness who will back up the assertion that the video shows "squibs similar to CD" and I'll interview the expert you suggest, and pass all of the details on to the D.A.

3) Well, aside from the obvious fact that they didn't collapse "straight down", I will pass on the videos or other evidence that you submit and will pass on the information that the unprecedented events of September 11, 2001 were indeed unprecedented. Of course, the D.A. will also consider all of the unprecedented events of that day and not only the ones that you think point to a conspiracy, but I will still gladly pass this all on.

4) Provide me with the statements or contact information of the civilians you refer to and I will interview each and every one of them and pass the information on to the D.A.

5) I will provide the D.A. with the early FEMA report and the later NIST report and the numerous statements of others at the scene, in the interests of full disclosure. Please pass along the names and contact information of anyone else whose evidence you wish to add to this point and I will interview each and every one of them personally, and pass that along too.

6) *this was your P.S., not numbered, but I numbered it for consistency*. You're wrong about this. The NIST reports are most assuredly admissible as evidence in a criminal trial. So don't fret over that. I'll pass those on the D.A. too.

See? Very, very little work on your part. A huge amount of work on my part. But I'm willing to put your evidence to the test. Are you?



There was no response to my offer on the original thread by Russell of any other CTer but, to be fair, Russell may well have been offline and may not have seen the original posts by the time I started this new thread.

But since I have to go out of town on Wednesday and won't be able to get back to the forum until Thursday evening at earliest, I thought it best to start a new thread so that his original post and my offer do not get lost among the hundreds of posts on the thread in which they first appeared.

So, there you have it, Russell and other CTers. I am offering to do all of the work, free of charge, and I will also provide you with tapes and transcripts of each and every interview for your review before presenting the entire package to a D.A., and the package will be in full compliance with all of the relevant rules of procedure.

I can't imagine that you would turn down such an offer, but do let me know. We can work out any other necessary terms, of course.


So, to reiterate: I'm willing to put your evidence to the test. Are you?











P.S. Again, since I haven't figured out the code for striking out letters and just so that it's all clear and above board, the original is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2058529&postcount=373

[LashL]

Bumping for Russell, who appears to be ignoring both the original post and this thread.


Come on, Russell. You know what they say... put up or shut up.

See you Thursday.

[Bell]

I apologize for misunderstanding the nature of our private communications.

There are many others including 9/11 families and victims working these issues.

The only survivor of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon is one example.

I am not pursuing legal action as I believe it is useless.

Bolding mine.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bolding mine.

Because they're Just Asking Questions. :mad:

[DavidJames]

Bolding mine.
If Russell believe he has evidence of guilt and refuses to go forward then he's a coward. He's spitting on the graves of the victims. He's making a mockery of tragedy.

You should be ashamed Russell.

[uk_dave]

Having evidence of a crime and not taking it direct to the authorities?

Isn't that a crime? Somehow I don't think a defence of "I thought they'd buy a ticket and watch the film" would be sufficient.

[apathoid]

I am not pursuing legal action as I believe it is useless.
Bolding mine.

Maybe he'd feel more comfortable taking it to court when the current admin is out of office....maybe?

[/devilsadvocate]

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe he'd feel more comfortable taking it to court when the current admin is out of office....maybe?

[/devilsadvocate]

[anti-devil's advocate]
Then take it to the UN. It was an international incident.
[/anti-devil's advocate]

[Bell]

[anti-devil's advocate]
Then take it to the UN. It was an international incident.
[/anti-devil's advocate]

[anti-anti-devil's advocate]
The UN is a USG sock puppet. Their headquarters are in NY for peets sake!
[/anti-anti-devil's advocate]

[apathoid]

[anti-anti-devil's advocate]
The UN is a USG sock puppet. Their headquarters are in NY for peets sake!
[/anti-anti-devil's advocate]

The UN doesnt pay their parking fines, therefore 9/11 was an inside job
[/troofsekker1+2=4]

[Overman]

:beerflag:

[Bell]

The UN doesnt pay their parking fines, therefore 9/11 was an inside job
[/troofsekker1+2=4]

Who said 9/11 was an inside job?
[/KKKilltown]

[apathoid]

Who said 9/11 was an inside job?
[/KKKilltown]

[anti-Killtown]
Judicial-inc.biz is not a reliable source, and the Holocaust was not exagerrated.
[/anti-Killtown]

[Childlike Empress]

Maybe he'd feel more comfortable taking it to court when the current admin is out of office....maybe?

"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley Hilton

[quixotecoyote]

This would be a criminal proceding. That case law is not relevant.

[KingMerv00]

"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley Hilton

What about criminal liability?

Edit: Quixote beat me.

[apathoid]

"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley Hilton

That link said he filed a civil suit representing the victims. Why not have a DA file a criminal suit?

[Childlike Empress]

That link said he filed a civil suit representing the victims. Why not have a DA file a criminal suit?

Wonderful. Go figure. All the best.

[twinstead]

I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.

[Loss Leader]

Which DA do you intend to present the evidence to?

Is it just the Manhattan DA or do you think others might consider themselves to have jurisdiction?

[realitybites]

I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.
They'll never do it. They see no relevance in experts. Which is fine, they're entitled to believe whatever they want regarding the legitimacy of their evidence.

But if it's all there in black and white, they need to do something about it. KillTown has listed 250 "smoking guns". They say they have enough to back up the CD theory. 83% of the population are apparently on their side in some form or another.

Honestly... how could the time get any more right?

[DavidJames]

They'll never do it. They see no relevance in experts. Which is fine, they're entitled to believe whatever they want regarding the legitimacy of their evidence.

But if it's all there in black and white, they need to do something about it. KillTown has listed 250 "smoking guns". They say they have enough to back up the CD theory. 83% of the population are apparently on their side in some form or another.

Honestly... how could the time get any more right?
Simply analogy.

CTists are like those people that sing in the shower and think, damn, that sounds great. But they never actually audition for any singing roles anywhere because, in their heart, they know their singing really sucks.

[defaultdotxbe]

Having evidence of a crime and not taking it direct to the authorities?

Isn't that a crime? Somehow I don't think a defence of "I thought they'd buy a ticket and watch the film" would be sufficient.
i know this applies to firsthand witnesses of muders, not sure how or if it applies to indirect evidence such as youtube videos

[Darth Rotor]

]:beerflag:
From the title, free beer was in the offing. I must agree with Overman on this one.

Put up, or shut up, OP, with this best offer: :beerflag: :p

Where is my beer????

DR

[twinstead]

Simply analogy.

CTists are like those people that sing in the shower and think, damn, that sounds great. But they never actually audition for any singing roles anywhere because, in their heart, they know their singing really sucks.

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.

[uk_dave]

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.

Exactly!!

They are living in an insular world where, apart from you pesky people and your debunking websites (I bet they never predicted that when they started!) they are surrounding themselves with people who are lapping up this conspiracy nonsense.

But as soon as they walk out into the cold harsh light of reality, the theory they have all nailed their colours to starts to fall apart and they are left looking very silly..... or worse.

[R.Mackey]

I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.
I don't know about getting the word out, but that's what it will take to convince me.

You'd think, out of the entire universe of 9/11 Deniers, there'd be one person together enough to capture it in written, logical, non-self-contradictory form, if there was anything to these delusions at all.

The first person who rebuts by saying "But what about Steven Jones?" will be taunted mercilessly. You have been warned.

[DavidJames]

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
Yeah, but then they go back in the shower and the cycle starts all over again.

To make matters worse, all the other people in the shower think they all sound like the Mormon f;ing tabernacle choir.

Reference intentional

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.

And then threaten to sue those holding the auditions, but then never follow through.

[uk_dave]

They share showers? Kinky.....

[DavidJames]

They share showers? Kinky.....I wish they would all just come clean

[chipmunk stew]

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAgSiFE05wg

OAgSiFE05wg

[realitybites]

All this D.A./"Law & Order" talk got me to thinking that if this ever does go to trial, I think I'd like to be on the government's defense team.

I wouldn't mind getting paid 6 figures to just sit in a court room all day repeating: "Objection, Your Honor... Speculation," over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[Bell]

All this D.A./"Law & Order" talk got me to thinking that if this ever does go to trial, I think I'd like to be on the government's defense team.

I wouldn't mind getting paid 6 figures to just sit in a court room all day repeating: "Objection, Your Honor... Speculation," over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I thought the gummit allready pays you 6 figures a month?

[Loss Leader]

Seriously, which municipalities do you believe have jurisdiction? I honestly want to know.

[apathoid]

Seriously, which municipalities do you believe have jurisdiction? I honestly want to know.

I would have no idea. I dont watch Law and Order or Judge Judy(anymore) - so I cant even speculate :)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.

[Skibum]

The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does.

Really? 30 seconds on google would certainly prove you wrong.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.

Well, if the US form of gov't is so fatally flawed, you better go find a desert island on which to live.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, if the US form of gov't is so fatally flawed, you better go find a desert island on which to live.

Logical fallacy, Arkan. Assuming the conclusion. You're assuming the legitimacy of government, the very question at issue. I will continue living right where I do.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Logical fallacy, Arkan. Assuming the conclusion. You're assuming the legitimacy of government, the very question at issue. I will continue living right where I do.

Um, no. You are the one assuming the gov't is corrupt, and therefore taking action within the system will fail because of the corruption. That is circular reasoning.

I am simply stating that if you think the gov't is corrupt, and that the system can not be used to uncover the corruption that you should bail while you have the chance; or are you proposing attempting to change uncover the corruption through methods outside the system?

[Loss Leader]

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does.

My lord in heaven, what a stupid post. The United States government is anything but monolithic. It consists of multiple overlapping jurisdictions - federal, state, county, town, village, school district, sewer district, joint ventures, etc. Each of these again divides the responsibilities for decision-making into branches of government - administrative, legislative and judicial.

The judiciary itself is important in that it does not answer to either branch. It interprets the laws and holds everyone accountable to them. It prevents political forces from overwhelming public policy.

There are endless examples of this. The district attorney may introduce himself as "the people of the State of New York," but the judge represents the people, too. Every time the prosecutor loses a case, the "government" has acted against the interests of "the government." Boston's schools were famously run by a federal judge for decades in another case where the "government" overruled the "government." Richard Nixon was forced to surrender his audio tapes in a 9-0 decision where the "government" again disagreed with the "government" and the dispute was resolved by the "government."

It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.

[realitybites]

The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.
Objection, Your Honor!

.... Speculation.

[DavidJames]

It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.Damn that was well put and deserves a bump.

Russell, since you hold the same view, this would apply to you as well.

[Alt+F4]

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does.

If Richard Nixon were still alive I'm sure he would disagree.

[Regnad Kcin]

Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.Wow. So wrong for so long.

[uk_dave]

Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work."

http://tinyurl.com/ylwwga

[hellaeon]

[slight derail yet again]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAgSiFE05wg

OAgSiFE05wg

sad indeed. Being involved with music and bands directly and heavily for the past 15 years (and sick of it hahaha) I can relate to this. The amount of bands that exist in heavy rock that think if you pick up a guitar or drum sticks your a guitarist or a drummer. Hey we all like to think we know what 'real' music is, but people like the ones shown are just embarressing. They are doing it entirely for fame and fortune, not for music. Perhaps they should have studied even basic music at school to understand timing. I just shake my head and reach for 'wish you were here' and yes, wish good bands and singers were here! The overuse of notes, the idea that wailing is considered signing, no idea about momentum or when to deliver the knockout blow. Its friggin l a m e. And their faces when told they suck are suprised. I cant sing, I even joke around with an opera voice and try and hit high notes and my GF laughs. Id still do better then these fools. Why is it so hard to be real for some people.

3 quick recomendations come to mind!

Primal Fear : classic metal, not overly original but the singer carves - most important member in these types of bands and he delivers strong and assertive.

Roger Waters : Ex pink floyd, knows how to write a song that carries through to the final note. Lyrically brilliant. Musically amazing.

Most things by Al Di Meola!

[/slight derail yet again]

[hellaeon]

Really? 30 seconds on google would certainly prove you wrong.

tsk tsk! Google is owned by the CIA....its disinformation, whatever you have.

[Oliver]

tsk tsk! Google is owned by the CIA....its disinformation, whatever you have.

Roxdog will join the thread and present his evidence.
Watch out - he has some serious proofs for his theory... ;)

[Bell]

Roxdog will join the thread and present his evidence.
Watch out - he has some serious proofs for his theory... ;)


THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!


Neh, don't think it will hold up in court.

[apathoid]

THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!


Neh, don't think it will hold up in court.

LMAOhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024504f61c3b197.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1423)

[T.A.M.]

While I admire the thought behind this thread, we all know none of the "truthers" will take this up and run with it. They all know as long as this stays an "internet" based thing, within the safety of blogs, and forums, then they do not have to accept the responsibility that goes along with their accusations, speculation, and heresay. That would all change if they went to a D.A.

Even the more serious CTers, what few there are, who have actually done real research, and have come out in public against the USG, know that the case against the USG re:9/11 is infact so circumstantial and weak, that no DA would consider it, beyond submission for the "joke of the day" case in some throw away law journal.

TAM

[LashL]

Seriously, which municipalities do you believe have jurisdiction? I honestly want to know.

LossLeader, I suspect that jurisdiction could arguably be claimed by various jurisdictions for purposes of trying a criminal case of this nature, depending on the evidence that Russell's alleged numerous witnesses provide. I haven't researched the jurisdictional issues in any depth yet because it will be somewhat dependent upon the alleged perpetrators that are identified via Russell's alleged witnesses, and the correlation between those alleged witnesses, the alleged perpetrators, the victims, and the facts.

But once the essential details are obtained from Russell's alleged witnesses, the jurisdictional issues can be easily addressed and determined. I suspect that there are multiple municipalities (and multiple states) that could legitimately claim jurisdiction over the matter, at least initially, but until we know what the evidence of these alleged witnesses actually is, we won't know which jurisdictions are potentially the best candidates.

[TruthSeeker1234]

My lord in heaven, what a stupid post. The United States government is anything but monolithic. It consists of multiple overlapping jurisdictions - federal, state, county, town, village, school district, sewer district, joint ventures, etc. Each of these again divides the responsibilities for decision-making into branches of government - administrative, legislative and judicial.

The judiciary itself is important in that it does not answer to either branch. It interprets the laws and holds everyone accountable to them. It prevents political forces from overwhelming public policy.

There are endless examples of this. The district attorney may introduce himself as "the people of the State of New York," but the judge represents the people, too. Every time the prosecutor loses a case, the "government" has acted against the interests of "the government." Boston's schools were famously run by a federal judge for decades in another case where the "government" overruled the "government." Richard Nixon was forced to surrender his audio tapes in a 9-0 decision where the "government" again disagreed with the "government" and the dispute was resolved by the "government."

It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.

I and my family enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle and own a very nice house in a nice part of L.A., and I've accomplished this entirely through creating little works of art. You could call me many things, but failure and/or loser are not among them.

As for government policing itself, you have got to be kidding. They pass laws against theft, then exempt themselves and call that "taxation". They pass laws against counterfeiting, exempt themselves and call that "monetary policy". They pass laws against mass-murder, exempt themselves and call that "foreign policy".

Even if you accept the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, what part of it is still in order? Where is it authorized that government can monopolize money? How can successive presidents get away with initiating war without Congress? What about the takeover of the educational system, where is that authorized? How about Social Security? i could go on and on.

The answer is that none of this is authorized by the Constitution, but Supreme Courts have legitimized all of it, i.e., in disputes involving itself, government found in its own favor. Over and over again.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Um, no. You are the one assuming the gov't is corrupt, and therefore taking action within the system will fail because of the corruption. That is circular reasoning.

I am simply stating that if you think the gov't is corrupt, and that the system can not be used to uncover the corruption that you should bail while you have the chance; or are you proposing attempting to change uncover the corruption through methods outside the system?

My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.

Yes, government is corrupt, by definition. Monopolies are inherently corrupt. Economic science figured out centuries ago that, from the standpoint of the consumer, competition is good and monopolies are bad.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If Richard Nixon were still alive I'm sure he would disagree.

How did the Nixon case diminish the power of government? It didn't, it increased it.

Furthermore, look at what they got Nixon for. Was it the fact that he destroyed the last tiny vestiage of the gold standard? No. Was it the bombing of civiliians in Southeast Asia? No. Was it deploying communist style price controls on the whole economy, casuing the "energy crisis"? No. Was it printing and spending so much paper money that the U.S. had the first case of "stag-flation"? No. All of those are crimes, and Nixon got away with all of them, as have all the rest.

No, they "got" him for covering up info about a burglary where his spooks were trying to bug his political opponents. Did he go to jail? No. Even if he had, it doesn't matter. Nixon was not "the government".

They pushed Nixon out, precisely because government would be more powerful without him.

Perhaps someone can give me an example where a central government actually reliquished some of its power, or actually began spending less than it had before.

[chipmunk stew]

I and my family enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle and own a very nice house in a nice part of L.A., and I've accomplished this entirely through creating little works of art.
Are you Ace Baker (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)?

[Gravy]

My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.Yes, you clearly have the sensibilities necessary to be a successful anarcho-capitalist. Permit me to refer you to the politics subforum. I will solicit recommendations in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum on what to do with your tattered remains.

[twinstead]

Yes, you clearly have the sensibilities necessary to be a successful anarcho-capitalist. Permit me to refer you to the politics subforum. I will solicit recommendations in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum on what to do with your tattered remains.

I wouldn't wish the politics subform on anybody, much less a 'successful anarcho-capitalist'.

You fiend!

[Foolmewunz]

My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.

Yes, government is corrupt, by definition. Monopolies are inherently corrupt. Economic science figured out centuries ago that, from the standpoint of the consumer, competition is good and monopolies are bad.

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?

Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[chipmunk stew]

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?

Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:
In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

[Gravy]

I wouldn't wish the politics subform on anybody, much less a 'successful anarcho-capitalist'.

You fiend!I was being sarcastic, of course. TS1234 clearly does not have what it takes to make it in the world of fantasy socioeconomics, much less in the politics forum, where real-world issues are, um, discussed.

[quixotecoyote]

As an aside, one cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist. The terms have an inherant contradiction:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html

[Foolmewunz]

In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

Well, I was going to list those concessions, plus the more obvious Legislative/Executive/Judiciary, but knowing a little about the Austrian School, I'm more curious how their Randian/Libertarian view of economics would be applied to the federal government. It's just a bit of an absurdist vision.

ETA: And I doubt that TS would even concede that any of the points either of us mention would qualify our system as "competitive".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Whoa! Slipping into a whole new realm here, aren't we?

Has there ever or will there ever be a government that does not hold a monopoly on "government"? Wouldn't putting up a "competitive" government be termed a "revolution"?



The definition of government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction, taxation and the legal use of force. Competition is not "put up", it is allowed. Competition exists in any area where it is not forcibly shut down.


Certain elements of the U.S. federal government have held monopolies and were later opened to competition - successfully in several cases, so that may be what you're referring to. But, since the major premise (that all monopolies are inherently corrupt) is not proven, merely assumed, then the minor premise (that governments, as monopolies, are therefore corrupt) is that much less valid.

The economics of monopoly are briefly as follows: Under a monopoly, prices will be higher and/or quality will be lower than what would exist under competition. Under Austrian (correct) economic theory, this is a general principle, thus applies to all goods and services. If you think there are exceptions to this, I'd be curious to hear.



Which government, by the way? The cities sue the states and the states sue the feds. Sometimes the courts come down on one side, sometimes on the other. Individuals have successfully sued numerous governments, too. The whole contention is just absurd.

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:This institution of the "state" was responsible for the intentional murder of around 100,000,000 innocent humans during the 20th century. I refer to acts committed on governments own "citizens", not acts of war against the "citizens" of some other government. War would add to these totals.

I think that free market competition in the production of security, justice, money etc would benefit the consumer for the same reason that that the consumer benefits from competition in the production of shoes.

[TruthSeeker1234]

In a very real sense, we have a competitive government. Local vs. State. State vs. Federal. Party vs. party. Candidate vs. candidate. Lobbyist vs. lobbyist. Branch vs. branch. House vs. Senate. Bill vs. bill. We could keep the list going for ages...

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.

[Foolmewunz]

Thanx, TS. I thought maybe you had some sort of coherent theory. Good to see you really have stripped the old gears and cogs. You cannot make everything analogous to economic theory.

[chipmunk stew]

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.
By force of law. Same as a private contract.

[chipmunk stew]

Are you Ace Baker (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)?
Are you?

[Loss Leader]

Even if you accept the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, what part of it is still in order?

Well, I understand that they're no longer counting blacks as 3/5 of a person. Otherwise, I think the Constitution is doing pretty well. Let's take a look:

Where is it authorized that government can monopolize money?

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power ... to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof ...

How can successive presidents get away with initiating war without Congress?


Art. II; Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Art II; Sec. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power ... to declare war ... [emphasis added]

What about the takeover of the educational system, where is that authorized?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you're referring to the case of the Boston school bussing:

Amd. IVX. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you're referring to federal oversight of education in the US in general, it's really not that significant. However, the power rests here:

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States.

Amd. IVX. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How about Social Security?

Art. I; Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States.

Amd. XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The answer is that none of this is authorized by the Constitution.

Um, no. You're wrong.

[Regnad Kcin]

Are you Ace Baker (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)?Got a good beat, easy to dance to. I'd give it a 54.

[Loss Leader]

No no. You're missing the essential ingredient that makes government different. They have the legal right to extract payment for services by force.


That is exactly correct. The government is the only legitimator of violence. Force may only be used by the government or with its permission.

You, however, miss the most important point of all: There is nothing necessarily wrong with this.

Without government presiding over the use of force, power belongs to whomever is strong enough to weild it. Large men can knock smaller men unconscious and take all their stuff. Heck, large men can knock smaller women unconscious and take whatever liberties they like. Government protects the weak - good government makes the weak exactly as powerful as the strong and the poor exactly as important as the wealthy.

Government has another important function and this is to do what individuals cannot or will not do on their own. If three hundred million people seem to need an aircraft carrier to protect them, is it reasonable to take up a collection? "Would you like to donate to our aircraft carrier fund?" Not seeing the immediate benefit of the weapon, many people might refuse. We might not be able to raise enough to get an aircraft carrier.

Or perhaps we do raise the money but Truthseeker1234 hasn't pitched in (he's an anarcho-capitalist, whatever that is). Now the USS Abraham Lincoln can't protect just the people who paid for it. It can't protect everybody but TS1234. So that selfish bastard gets the benefit of an aircraft carrier without paying for it. In good mob fashion, his neighbors get angry and go down to his nice house in LA and show him just how much they appreciate his lack of generosity. Here's a better plan: government can just take the money from everybody and eliminate the problem of free riders.

Would you chip in for an aircraft carrier? How about land mines?

Some government services are entirely unwanted by the people receiving them. Is there a single convict in prison who would want to pay to stay there? The money is raised from people who will never even see the inside of a prison.

Other services make no obvious capitalistic sense. Why did we send men to the moon? There was no profit in it, at least no easily foreseeable profit. And it cost a lot of money ... a whole lot.

The question is not whether the goverment takes by force. The question is whether the government's decision-making promotes social justice. As the meaning of "justice" is a political question, our concern should be making sure we are represented by people who hear us and care about our concerns. This is much different from the belief that government should be disbanded. I mean, that's just stupid.

[realitybites]

THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!

Objection, Your Honor.....

......... Speculation.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are you?

Yes.

[chipmunk stew]

Yes.
:aaa!

[realitybites]

Yes.
I love that song dude.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss leader, you're articulating public goods theory. Yes, that is the intellectual framework in support of statism. The Austrians have refuted it to my satisfaction, I shan't go into here. Here's a nice Walter Block lecture on roads, and he discusses public goods theory.

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2004/Block3.mp3

It is not the provision of important services that is the problem, it is the monopolization.


Your assertions about the U.S. Constitution are fallacious. Yes, the document "authorizes" the fedgov to coin money, not print unbacked paper fiat money. Large important difference. Furthermore, it does not authorize them to monopolize money. They did this in 3 steps - 1913 (the Fed), 1933 (Confiscation of all monetary gold) and 1971 (Complete severance of gold redeemibility).

As far as the "general welfare" clause, this could be used to justify anything. Shoes are a good. Why wouldn't the government tax everyone and then give us all "free" shoes? Using your logic, the general welfare clause legitimizes full communism.

[chipmunk stew]

Look around and look through history. Name one complex society without either an organized government or a collection of tribal fiefdoms led by strongmen.

And the general welfare clause could be used to justify just about anything. That's why we have a competitive political system, so that we limit centralized overreaching. We have a case history of judicial precedents and decisions related to the clause that flesh it out.

[Loss Leader]

As far as the "general welfare" clause, this could be used to justify anything. Shoes are a good. Why wouldn't the government tax everyone and then give us all "free" shoes? Using your logic, the general welfare clause legitimizes full communism.

The economic system that a government fosters is a political question. I have no problem living in a socialist or even a communist nation so long as it is a representative and democratic one. If your goal was to show that the extension of my thinking led to an absurdity, you have failed.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The economic system that a government fosters is a political question. I have no problem living in a socialist or even a communist nation so long as it is a representative and democratic one. If your goal was to show that the extension of my thinking led to an absurdity, you have failed.

No, my goal was to show that the extension of your thinking led to communism, and I succeeded. Loss Leader favors "democratic communism" whatever that may be. Thank you for your candid admission. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the major communist nations like Soviet Union and China engaged in mass murder? Or is there perhaps some connection between communism and the need to exterminate those unwilling to surrender their property?

(Just trying to get a handle on how typical OCT's think)

[LashL]

No, my goal was to show that the extension of your thinking led to communism, and I succeeded. Loss Leader favors "democratic communism" whatever that may be. Thank you for your candid admission.

And you felt the need to do so on a thread about the failure of one of your fellow tinhatters to provide the evidence that he claimed to have about the events of 9/11 and the failure of your fellow tinhatter to accept or even address the offer to take that evidence and develop it for purposes of presenting to the appropriate authorities in the judicial system?

Your posts are as random and inappropriate as your "music", "Ace". And like I said on an appropriate thread, at least the guy I know who was given that atrocious name had no choice in the matter. You, on the other hand....

[Loss Leader]

The economic system that a government fosters is a political question. I have no problem living in a socialist or even a communist nation so long as it is a representative and democratic one. If your goal was to show that the extension of my thinking led to an absurdity, you have failed.

No, my goal was to show that the extension of your thinking led to communism, and I succeeded. Loss Leader favors "democratic communism" whatever that may be. Thank you for your candid admission. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the major communist nations like Soviet Union and China engaged in mass murder? Or is there perhaps some connection between communism and the need to exterminate those unwilling to surrender their property?

(Just trying to get a handle on how typical OCT's think)

Your response is bizarre and illogical. At no point did I admit, candidly or not, that I favor communism. It is not hat I said and it cannot ber inferred from what I said. My actual statement was that "The economic system that a government fosters is a political question." I have no knee-jerk reaction to communism or socialism or capitalism or onanism, for that matter. I only care that the government that imposes such economic systems do so with the consent of the governed.

What is most interesting is that you willfully misread my statement about democratic decision-making as favoring communism. Your reading comprehension on the subject was, in fact, so poor that you declared something I did not imply to be a "candid admission." You then implied that my views were typical of OCT's.

What I believe we can infer from your unhinged analysis is that you see the vast majority of normal Americans around you as closet communists who favor, as you put it, the need to "exterminate those unwilling to surrender their property." Once again, you have exposed a deeply paranoid personality which suggests deep and pervasive psychological illness.

Or, you're just too stupid to read a paragraph and grasp its meaning. Take your pick.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss Leader, your "candid admission" is that you think communism is OK if a majority of the people want it. That is a candid admission. Would you apply the same logic to slavery? In South Carolina in 1830 I'm pretty sure a clear majority of citizens supported slavery. Hitler enjoyed overwhelming popular support.

I'm paranoid because I fear property confiscation? I presently surrender about 50% of my property to the government every year. Is this my imagination?

[WildCat]

I'm paranoid because I fear property confiscation? I presently surrender about 50% of my property to the government every year. Is this my imagination?
Yet you seem perfectly happy to use the roads, rails, water, police and fire protection, etc. that the gov't serves you with.

I know, in Libertopia all those things will be provided for by private citizens... :rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader, your "candid admission" is that you think communism is OK if a majority of the people want it. That is a candid admission. Would you apply the same logic to slavery? In South Carolina in 1830 I'm pretty sure a clear majority of citizens supported slavery. Hitler enjoyed overwhelming popular support.

Once again, you misquote me. Once again your own paranoia causes you to see words that are not there. And once again, you reveal just how poor your reading and reasoning skills are.

I never said one word about a thing being okay "if a majority of the people want it." Your slavary and Nazism analogies do not hold.

What I said was - and I will reprint my posts exactly:

"The question is whether the government's decision-making promotes social justice. As the meaning of "justice" is a political question, our concern should be making sure we are represented by people who hear us and care about our concerns."

"... good government makes the weak exactly as powerful as the strong and the poor exactly as important as the wealthy."

"I have no problem living in a socialist or even a communist nation so long as it is a representative and democratic one."

At no point did I say that the majority should rule or even that overwhelming public support should be sufficient for public policy. I stated that good government promotes social justice, makes the weak as powerful as the strong and is representative. If you see that as consistent with slavery and Nazism, the error is in your perception and not in my argument.

Seriously, you should give up. I've forgotten more about political philosophy than you will ever know.

[LashL]

Your response is bizarre and illogical.

That is nearly always a given with BS1234 posts. It is also usually what distinguishes CT posts from intelligent posts.

At no point did I admit, candidly or not, that I favor communism. It is not hat I said and it cannot ber inferred from what I said. My actual statement was that "The economic system that a government fosters is a political question." I have no knee-jerk reaction to communism or socialism or capitalism or onanism, for that matter. I only care that the government that imposes such economic systems do so with the consent of the governed.


Reading comprehension is also a problem for most tinhatters. They only "read" what they want to see.

What is most interesting is that you willfully misread my statement about democratic decision-making as favoring communism. Your reading comprehension on the subject was, in fact, so poor that you declared something I did not imply to be a "candid admission." You then implied that my views were typical of OCT's.


Ah, as I was saying above... reading comprehension...but yes, in the case of tinhatters, it is usually deliberate misreading.

What I believe we can infer from your unhinged analysis is that you see the vast majority of normal Americans around you as closet communists who favor, as you put it, the need to "exterminate those unwilling to surrender their property." Once again, you have exposed a deeply paranoid personality which suggests deep and pervasive psychological illness.


Indeed. Paranoia runs deep among conspiracy theory adherents.

Or, you're just too stupid to read a paragraph and grasp its meaning. Take your pick.


In BS1234's case, I think it is safe to say that it's not an either/or proposition. Rather, both options are applicable.

[Orphia Nay]

Bummer. I'd hoped after only reading the first few posts of this interesting subject a few days ago, some action was actually being taken by a CTist and someone had accepted LashL's generous offer.

I should have known the next 80-odd posts would be debating a legend-in-their-own-lunchbox such as BS1+2=4.

Still, I enjoyed Loss Leader's excellent post listing quotations from the US Constitution.

LashL, is your offer still open to other CTists now that Russell has weaselled out?

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.

Perhaps you and LashL could arrange a deal. Or were you hoping Russell CherryPicking would do all the work?

[Bell]

Perhaps you and LashL could arrange a deal. Or were you hoping Russell CherryPicking would do all the work?

I suddenly remember TS1234's offer to debate a member here 1 on 1. Nothing much came of that though...

[LashL]

Bummer. I'd hoped after only reading the first few posts of this interesting subject a few days ago, some action was actually being taken by a CTist and someone had accepted LashL's generous offer.

I should have known the next 80-odd posts would be debating a legend-in-their-own-lunchbox such as BS1+2=4.

Still, I enjoyed Loss Leader's excellent post listing quotations from the US Constitution.

Me, too. I thoroughly enjoy all of LossLeader's posts. He has a great knack for cutting to the quick and leaving tinhatters and their lame, disingenuous posts and pseudo-arguments in his dust :)


LashL, is your offer still open to other CTists now that Russell has weaselled out?


Yes, it is.

Perhaps you and LashL could arrange a deal. Or were you hoping Russell CherryPicking would do all the work?


I'm game. I doubt that BS1+2=4 is up for it, though, any more than Russell was. Typical CT nonsense - all talk, no action; all hat, no cattle; all feathers, no chicken; all blather, no balls.

[Loss Leader]

Me, too. I thoroughly enjoy all of LossLeader's posts. He has a great knack for cutting to the quick and leaving tinhatters and their lame, disingenuous posts and pseudo-arguments in his dust :)


I'm actually starting to mist up a little.

Oh, I can't hold it in any longer: I love you guys!

[LashL]

I'm actually starting to mist up a little.

Oh, I can't hold it in any longer: I love you guys!

(insert "rolling on the floor laughing my ass off" smiley here)

:p

Edit to add: I nominate LossLeader for poster of the month (well, okay, I would if there was such a thing, anyway). Not only are his posts terrific at cutting through BS and leaving tinhatters and their lame, disingenuous nonsense in his dust, he also has a twisted (and wonderful) sense of humour.

[LashL]

All kidding aside, though, is there any CTer here, lurking or otherwise, who will take me up on my offer?

I'm very serious about it, and I have the knowledge, resources, and expertise to carry it out. I'm also amenable to negotiating additional terms if any given CTer feels that the existing terms require tweaking, but I haven't had even a single response by a single CTer yet. Hard to believe, since so many CTers claim to have facts, evidence and witnesses that would blow the whole thing wide open if only, if only, if only someone would listen to them, interview their witnesses, and present their evidence.

Well, I'm listening. And I'm offering to interview your witnesses and present your evidence.

Don't be shy - you can contact me privately if you wish, and your private communications will remain private, without exception.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I suddenly remember TS1234's offer to debate a member here 1 on 1. Nothing much came of that though...

I began debating Chipmunk Stew, who evidently quit. Chip brought no evidence.

[tsig]

Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.


Who is Hans Hoppe and why should I care what he thinks.

[tsig]

I and my family enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle and own a very nice house in a nice part of L.A., and I've accomplished this entirely through creating little works of art. You could call me many things, but failure and/or loser are not among them.

As for government policing itself, you have got to be kidding. They pass laws against theft, then exempt themselves and call that "taxation". They pass laws against counterfeiting, exempt themselves and call that "monetary policy". They pass laws against mass-murder, exempt themselves and call that "foreign policy".

Even if you accept the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, what part of it is still in order? Where is it authorized that government can monopolize money? How can successive presidents get away with initiating war without Congress? What about the takeover of the educational system, where is that authorized? How about Social Security? i could go on and on.

The answer is that none of this is authorized by the Constitution, but Supreme Courts have legitimized all of it, i.e., in disputes involving itself, government found in its own favor. Over and over again.

I will buy enough of your art to own you.

[LashL]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

I'm dead serious.

Please do start "loading me up" with what you think is "2 years worth of full time work" if you think you have it, and send me the contact information of those "hundreds of people" that you believe have a "mountain of evidence". I'm actually willing to do the work that you and most other tinhatters are not willing to do. So, by all means, send me their contact information and I will actually contact them, interview them, and provide tapes and verbatim transcripts of the results.

In the meantime, send me Mr. Barnett's contact information and I'll get started with him right away since he's the person you say you want me to interview first. You can PM me with the details of his contact information rather than posting them here publicly if you like. A telephone number will suffice for purposes of initial contact.

I'm waiting.....

[LashL]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

As I said above, and as the premise of this very thread exhibits, I'm very serious.

In addition to my post above, after you've provided Mr. Barnett's contact information, (or even if you can't and have to do this out of order, that's fine, too), please provide me with contact information for your "hundreds of people" and I will interview each and every one of them, and will provide recordings and verbatim transcripts of every interview, as promised.

But, just in case you're thinking that the order of operations is a dilemma, it isn't. I'll take the names and contact information in any order that you can provide it, so don't let that stop you.

Send me any and all contacts and info in whatever order you like and I'll work with it.

No excuses now, start sending. I'm waiting.

[Gravy]

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

What's stopping you from interviewing these people?

Please answer.

[LashL]

As I said above, and as the premise of this very thread exhibits, I'm very serious.

In addition to my post above, after you've provided Mr. Barnett's contact information, (or even if you can't and have to do this out of order, that's fine, too), please provide me with contact information for your "hundreds of people" and I will interview each and every one of them, and will provide recordings and verbatim transcripts of every interview, as promised.

But, just in case you're thinking that the order of operations is a dilemma, it isn't. I'll take the names and contact information in any order that you can provide it, so don't let that stop you.

Send me any and all contacts and info in whatever order you like and I'll work with it.

No excuses now, start sending. I'm waiting.

BS1+2=4:

Still waiting....

[chran]

It's not gonna happen, Lash, I can tell you that much.

"Ace" is perfectly happy behind his computer, making crappy music. Next, he's gonna claim he doesn't have contact information for any of his "witnesses", OR that it's not HIS job to do that since it's YOUR offer.

Just wait.

[R.Mackey]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.
I'm having serious deja vu here... unless it's just my false NWO memories kicking in... but didn't we already address this?

Oh, yes, we did. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2004334#post2004334). Weeks ago.

TruthSeeker1234, doesn't it bother you that you're just recycling the same crap over and over again? Not a single original thought, just repeating the same dull orbit? (And a highly eccentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentricity_%28orbit%29) orbit at that!)

[Kent1]

I'm having serious deja vu here... unless it's just my false NWO memories kicking in... but didn't we already address this?

Oh, yes, we did. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2004334#post2004334). Weeks ago.

TruthSeeker1234, doesn't it bother you that you're just recycling the same crap over and over again? Not a single original thought, just repeating the same dull orbit? (And a highly eccentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentricity_%28orbit%29) orbit at that!)

I interviewed Barnett months ago. He was even happy to give the top suspects for the sulfer.
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)

He even explained the metal he was talking about was this metal which didn't reach 1000C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
No where near the temps Jones claims of over 2000C.
Why Steven Jones (or one of his friends) couldn't simply shoot him an e-mail is beyond me.

[Orphia Nay]

I'm actually starting to mist up a little.

Oh, I can't hold it in any longer: I love you guys!

:D

(insert "rolling on the floor laughing my ass off" smiley here)

:p

Edit to add: I nominate LossLeader for poster of the month (well, okay, I would if there was such a thing, anyway). Not only are his posts terrific at cutting through BS and leaving tinhatters and their lame, disingenuous nonsense in his dust, he also has a twisted (and wonderful) sense of humour.

Yep, well that is, I agree with the main sentiments, but if pressed, I would have a hard time choosing between Loss Leader and you, LashL, as poster of the month. Often are the recent times when reading a thread, that I am awed by your general knowledge of 9/11 CTs, your expertise at legal issues in relation to them, and your contribution to the discussion at hand. Thankyou, both of you, for your contribution to the excellence of this forum.

[Orphia Nay]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

A predictably weaselly attempt at a commitment for a CTist.

Are you in, or not?

[W6102LA]

Hey LashL, maybe you should talk to this guy, his evidence is so hot he fears for his life ;)

Lyte Trip and I are in possession of some very explosive detailed and documented information and evidence on the Pentagon.

Every time I speak with him on the phone on the subject, it sounds like someone is picking up another line in the house and pressing one button, then the redial button sequence.

This has happened multiple times.

Plus strange clicking, like someone picked up the other line, then hangs up.

The clicking sometimes happens any time I speak with anyone regarding the Pentagon info since this new evidence has arrived.

Please be aware that neither of us will commit suicide and will drive extra careful.

And all the information we have has already been presented, but now will be documented.

Please stay tuned and pray for us.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=604&st=0&#last

[Loss Leader]

Alright, is *anybody* reading this a criminal lawyer? Here's my question: Would the DA of the coounty and state of any victim of 9/11 have jurisdiction to prosecute a person for murder? What about the DAs in the counties where the murderers lived? How about the ones in the areas the planes took off from?

I have this gut feeling that the Manhattan DA cannot be the only one with jd, but I know nothing about the subject. I stay far away from criminal law and, so far, criminal law has been content to stay far away from me.

[chipmunk stew]

I began debating Chipmunk Stew, who evidently quit.
This is true. I lost interest and did not hold up my end of the bargain. If anyone else would like to stand in, feel free.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65027

[tsig]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

The first person I want you to interview is Jonathan Barnett. I want to find out if he remembers the Novermber 29 New york Times piece by Jim Glanz where Barnett says that steel beams were partially evaporated. Ask him if he knows what happened to the article. Ditto Glanz.

Why would anybody do your work for you?

[tsig]

This is true. I lost interest and did not hold up my end of the bargain. If anyone else would like to stand in, feel free.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65027

Talking with insanity is what we phycos do, we just don't spell well.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I will buy enough of your art to own you.

WHy don't you fund the 9/11 music project? As long as I have creative control, that is.

[Regnad Kcin]

...There is a mountain of evidence.Yawn.

[Gravy]

Second time, TS:

You spend lots of time posting here. You even say you're setting up a "Hunt the rubble" website. What's preventing you from using that time to contact some of the experts who you feel should be interviewed?

Please answer.

[LashL]

I interviewed Barnett months ago. He was even happy to give the top suspects for the sulfer.
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)

He even explained the metal he was talking about was this metal which didn't reach 1000C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
No where near the temps Jones claims of over 2000C.
Why Steven Jones (or one of his friends) couldn't simply shoot him an e-mail is beyond me.

Kudos to you, Kent.

Well, well. Imagine that - actually interviewing the guy!

So, "Ace", what do you have to say about that? No questions for Kent, who has actually interviewed the guy that you identified as the one you most wanted interviewed?

And where's the rest of that "2 years of work" that you alluded to above?

[LashL]

It's not gonna happen, Lash, I can tell you that much.

"Ace" is perfectly happy behind his computer, making crappy music. Next, he's gonna claim he doesn't have contact information for any of his "witnesses", OR that it's not HIS job to do that since it's YOUR offer.

Just wait.

I suspect you're right, chran.

But as long as 9/11 Deniers keep pretending to have "witnesses" and "evidence", I will maintain my offer. Maybe one of these days, one of them will actually follow through, provide their contact information and take me up on the offer, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

[LashL]

:D



Yep, well that is, I agree with the main sentiments, but if pressed, I would have a hard time choosing between Loss Leader and you, LashL, as poster of the month. Often are the recent times when reading a thread, that I am awed by your general knowledge of 9/11 CTs, your expertise at legal issues in relation to them, and your contribution to the discussion at hand. Thankyou, both of you, for your contribution to the excellence of this forum.

Whoa ~ now it's my turn to (almost) "mist up".

Thank you, orphia nay, for your kind words.

[LashL]

Alright, is *anybody* reading this a criminal lawyer? Here's my question: Would the DA of the coounty and state of any victim of 9/11 have jurisdiction to prosecute a person for murder? What about the DAs in the counties where the murderers lived? How about the ones in the areas the planes took off from?

I have this gut feeling that the Manhattan DA cannot be the only one with jd, but I know nothing about the subject. I stay far away from criminal law and, so far, criminal law has been content to stay far away from me.

Your gut feeling is right, Loss Leader. Manhattan is not the only location with jurisdiction over criminal charges arising from the events of 9/11. However, it is not the case that any county in which the murderers lived or in which the victims lived would have jurisdiction to hear criminal charges (although courts in locations where the victims resided or where their survivors reside might well have jurisdiction in a civil suit, but not a criminal one unless it is also where the crime was committed, etc., see further discussion below).

Basically, the jurisdictional issue requires that the court has jurisdiction over the person, jurisdiction over the subject matter, and jurisdiction to make the order sought. The first is satisfied by the location in which a crime occurred; the second is satisfied by reference to the statutes granting the court the power to adjudicate in the matters at hand, in this case, criminal law. The third is not really relevant for purposes of this discussion.

I worked in criminal courts for several years before I went to law school, and know Canadian criminal law inside out even though I do not practice crim now. However, there are significant differences between crim law in Canada and crim law in the U.S., and I'm no expert on U.S. jurisdiction in crim matters. Here, it's somewhat straightforward because criminal matters are uniformly subject to the Criminal Code of Canada, which is a federal statute, but which is administered at the provincial level. The Code applies uniformly across the entire country, though, and there are no separate provincial laws that apply to purely criminal offences as crim is solely within the purview of the federal arm of the gov't. So, jurisdictional issues in criminal matters only tend to arise here when they involve crimes like conspiracy or mail fraud or internet fraud or telephone fraud, which often span numerous locations and thus give rise to questions about which municipality is the appropriate one to assume jurisdiction.

That said, I am an interested observer of U.S. criminal law and have followed and studied it to some degree over the years. As I result, I am pretty sure that there are various possible locales that could claim jurisdiction. Generally speaking, jurisdiction in the case of criminal acts can be asserted by a state court in the locale where the crime was committed (assuming the state law provides for the prosecution of the criminal offences alleged - in certain subject matters, jurisdiction is reserved to the federal gov't).

In this case, there are several locations where the murders actually occurred (NYC, Washington DC, and Shanksville, PA - and perhaps others, as it is reported that some passengers were stabbed or otherwise killed on board some of the flights shortly after the hijackings began), so those are obvious locations where murder charges could be brought.

And, as an added twist: CTers seem to think that there was a vast conspiracy among governmental officials, for instance, and if the criminal charge is conspiracy, the location of the offences can be anywhere that any of the conpirators took any overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy. So, that could open up dozens or hundreds of new venues that might have criminal jurisdiction.

In addition, assuming that the charges are murder charges, federal courts would likely claim jurisdiction because the murders involved crossing state lines (hijacked flights from one state to another, etc.) and there is long standing case law that allows the feds to take jurisdiction in such cases; and also because one of the planes deliberated crashed in Washington, D.C., a location that is under federal jurisdiction in any event and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction as a matter of course.

So, the feds could and would probably assert jurisdiction with regard to all four flights and duke it out with any state that wanted to assert jurisdiction. The location for trial would typically be the locale where the crimes occurred, but as noted above, that could be a number of places, depending on the crimes charged.

As noted at the outset, I am not an expert in U.S. criminal law, and this is merely my take on it as an interested observer who has studied some U.S. crim law along the way. I'd be delighted to hear from a U.S. crim lawyer if any are reading.

[Loss Leader]

Your gut feeling is right, Loss Leader.

<lots of good stuff>


Thank you. My feelings on this issue have been firming up. I think any state where a material act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place would have jurisdiction. That's definitely Newark and Boston, the areas in Florida with the flight schools, and probably any other place the hijackers went. I think it might even include any county any of the planes flew over.

As to whether the feds would take the case from a local DA, that's a political question.

So, the way I see it, there are maybe a hundred or more counties in which a suit could be brought. One of those places must have a DA crazy enough to take any of this on. I would thus encourage CTists to get their information together and take up this offer.

[LashL]

Thank you. My feelings on this issue have been firming up. I think any state where a material act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place would have jurisdiction. That's definitely Newark and Boston, the areas in Florida with the flight schools, and probably any other place the hijackers went. I think it might even include any county any of the planes flew over.

As to whether the feds would take the case from a local DA, that's a political question.

So, the way I see it, there are maybe a hundred or more counties in which a suit could be brought. One of those places must have a DA crazy enough to take any of this on. I would thus encourage CTists to get their information together and take up this offer.

Yes, I agree with you that the big kicker is the furtherance of conspiracy part, which opens the door pretty wide to all kinds of venues.

I also agree with you that the question of whether the feds would take the case from a local DA is a political question (except in DC as it is designated as under federal jurisdiction).

But the important part is that, yes, there are many, many locales that could assert jurisdiction over conspiracy charges and thus many, many DAs who could be approached with the information and evidence that the CTers claim to have. So... what are they waiting for?

And, of course, I join you in your call for conspiracy theory believers to get their information together and take up the offer. I don't think I can make it any easier for them than I already have. *Sigh*

[Regnad Kcin]

WHy don't you fund the 9/11 music project? As long as I have creative control, that is.You're not attempting to profit or advance your career by way of the events of 9/11, are you? Just curious.

[David Wong]

You cannot be serious. I could easily load you up with 2 years of full time work. There are hundreds of people to interview. There is a mountain of evidence.

What person with the means and skill wouldn't want to do this? It'd be the most fascinating two years a person could spend, and the result could make them world famous. They'd have a book deal at the very least.

If there is meat to the conspiracy theory then there should be countless people willing to take on the task. It'd be an amazing experience, a life-defining accomplishment.

And if no one within the movement possesses the investigative skill, surely they could just hire a private investigation firm to do the same, right? I know it would take money, but let's face it, to Charlie Sheen and his wife, a million bucks has to be pocket change. That'd be a nice start, right?

They get the ball rolling, then get the other truthers to start a fund to take donations for the cause. Hit up Hugo Chavez... you could have $10 million in a month.

Wait a second... why haven't they done that?

[Orphia Nay]

Good points, David Wong.

Yes, and what's Jimmy Walter been doing all this time, besides making (even more) money out of 9/11? (ETA: And trying to get people to prove a negative.)

[LashL]

Good points, David Wong.

Yes, and what's Jimmy Walter been doing all this time, besides making (even more) money out of 9/11? (ETA: And trying to get people to prove a negative.)

Good points indeed.

As for Jimmy Walter, last I saw, he was still busy doing a chicken dance of some kind - it never made any sense to me, admittedly. ;)

It seems obvious that the actual truth (note: the real truth, no false capitalization, no air quotes, no scare quotes) is not important at all to troofers.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I interviewed Barnett months ago. He was even happy to give the top suspects for the sulfer.
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)

He even explained the metal he was talking about was this metal which didn't reach 1000C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
No where near the temps Jones claims of over 2000C.
Why Steven Jones (or one of his friends) couldn't simply shoot him an e-mail is beyond me.

DId you ask him about the steel that was "partially evaporated" and was a "Great Mystery", you know, the New York Times article written by Jim Glanz on November 29, 2001? Does he know why the title of the article was cleansed? Did they ever solve the mystery? DId you ask him if he'd ever seen the videos and pictures of the evaporating, disintegrating steel, and if so, did he think that possibly this is what led to his earlier discovery?

I and many others see what we believe are steel members disintegrating or evaporating into dust as they fall. We also notice a distinct lack of overall mass at ground zero. In many sequences it just plain looks like most of the building turns into dust.

[Pardalis]

What is a "steel member"?

[Kent1]

DId you ask him about the steel that was "partially evaporated" and was a "Great Mystery", you know, the New York Times article written by Jim Glanz on November 29, 2001? Does he know why the title of the article was cleansed? Did they ever solve the mystery? DId you ask him if he'd ever seen the videos and pictures of the evaporating, disintegrating steel, and if so, did he think that possibly this is what led to his earlier discovery?

I and many others see what we believe are steel members disintegrating or evaporating into dust as they fall. We also notice a distinct lack of overall mass at ground zero. In many sequences it just plain looks like most of the building turns into dust.

Yes I linked him that article, and asked him if it was refering to this steel.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

He said yes. As I stated he had high suspects as to what the cause was.
Some of my post was a cut and paste of his reply.
-Heating oil (extr high probability)
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high probability)
-environmental sources such as acid rain (high)
He stated that there should be more study upon it. From my understanding Erin M. Sullivan has continued to do more research.

I didn't show him photos or videos and pictures of the evaporating, disintegrating steel because I don't know of any.
Feel free to send him your video and photos from the other thread. If he replys I'd love to see it. LOL!

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, of all the billions of people who saw the very same images, the thousands of engeneers and scientists, why are you the only one who saw "evaporation"?

Be careful, you're dangerously heading for Christopheraland...

[LashL]

DId you ask him about the steel that was "partially evaporated" and was a "Great Mystery", you know, the New York Times article written by Jim Glanz on November 29, 2001? Does he know why the title of the article was cleansed? Did they ever solve the mystery? DId you ask him if he'd ever seen the videos and pictures of the evaporating, disintegrating steel, and if so, did he think that possibly this is what led to his earlier discovery?

I and many others see what we believe are steel members disintegrating or evaporating into dust as they fall. We also notice a distinct lack of overall mass at ground zero. In many sequences it just plain looks like most of the building turns into dust.

You can read Kent's response to your query in his post #127 for yourself, TS. Unlike you, he has actually interviewed Mr. Barnett.

The questions that your posts on this subject raise for me are:

1) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever contacted Mr. Barnett yourselves?

2) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever contacted Mr. Glanz yourselves?

3) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever contacted the headline writers to ask about the headline you claim was "cleansed"?

4) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever made any meaningful attempts to "solve the mystery" that you claim exists?

5) Why haven't you or or any of the "many others" you cite ever taken it upon yourselves to show Mr. Barnett the videos and photographs of "evaporating, disintegrating steel" that you claim exist?

7) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever taken it upon yourselves to consult any experts in video or photographic analysis, particularly when it is blatantly apparent that you have no such expertise yourselves and when it is blatantly apparent that the entirety of your various and sundry hypotheses are based solely upon photographs and videos found on the internet, the provenance of which you rarely seem to be aware.

8) For that matter, why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever taken it upon yourselves to ascertain the provenance of the photographs and videos that you rely so exclusively upon?

9) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever consulted appropriate experts about what you "believe" to be "steel members disintegrating or evaporating into dust as they fall"?

10) Why haven't you or any of the "many others" you cite ever consulted appropriate experts about what you "believe" to be a "lack of overall mass at ground zero"?

[uk_dave]

What is a "steel member"?

https://www.viagra.com/index.asp

Apparently....... ahem

[Regnad Kcin]

Ba-dum bump.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I have contacted Barnett, and Glanz. They won't talk to me.

So Barnett says heating oil, and/or drywall, and/or acid rain can evaporate steel?

Any of you believe him? What is the boiling point of steel again? I think it's around 3000˚ C

Anyway, it's great info for Lash's indictments. Kent, please forward your materials to Lash. Did you get him on tape?

Next up, how about the firefighters and others who report explosions? How about interviewing Paul Issac?

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

[Oliver]

I have contacted Barnett, and Glanz. They won't talk to me.

So Barnett says heating oil, and/or drywall, and/or acid rain can evaporate steel?

Any of you believe him? What is the boiling point of steel again? I think it's around 3000˚ C

Anyway, it's great info for Lash's indictments. Kent, please forward your materials to Lash. Did you get him on tape?

Next up, how about the firefighters and others who report explosions? How about interviewing Paul Issac?

Ever tried to break a frozen bar of chocolate and one
at room-temperature? (PD loves that) There is no need
to melt steel until it gets instable... :rolleyes:

[TruthSeeker1234]

I mean, this is assuming we don't have access to any of the real players. If you could interview Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz, or Zelikow, or Silverstein, or Giuliani, or Bazant, or Jane Garvey, or. . .

[TruthSeeker1234]

For those who don't know what we're talking about, (oliver), the headline on the New York Times article of Nov 29 2001 said

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC:
"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"

Evaporating steel requires temperatures of about 3000˚ C

[Oliver]

I mean, this is assuming we don't have access to any of the real players. If you could interview Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz, or Zelikow, or Silverstein, or Giuliani, or Bazant, or Jane Garvey, or. . .

I guess that Silversteen knows nothing - otherwise he
would not have told the "Pull it" story. And the other guys
didn´t or don´t want to blame themselves because the
lousy job they did to prevent the attacks... I guess...

[Oliver]

For those who don't know what we're talking about, (oliver), the headline on the New York Times article of Nov 29 2001 said

Evaporating steel requires temperatures of about 3000˚ C

Ever tried to break a frozen bar of chocolate and one at room-temperature? :confused:

[stateofgrace]

For those who don't know what we're talking about, (oliver), the headline on the New York Times article of Nov 29 2001 said
Evaporating steel requires temperatures of about 3000˚ C

BS, NIST and a highly experienced, trained group of individuals have been investigating this for the last five years. A report is due shortly, next year I believe.

Now BS,why not let people who actually know what they are doing publish their work and findings, rather than quoting articles that are five years old. Does this not seem reasonable?

[apathoid]

So Barnett says heating oil, and/or drywall, and/or acid rain can evaporate steel?

Any of you believe him? What is the boiling point of steel again? I think it's around 3000˚ C


If you were so inclined, you could research what negative affects heating oil, gypsum drywall and acid rain might have on the steel. But, you dont even need to do that - the answer was in the link in Kents recent post:

A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940∞C. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries.


Being that I am an IPC certified soldering tech, I have a basic understanding of what the eutectic process is. Basically, 2 different metals, when combined in precisely the right proportions, have a considerably lower melting point than either of the 2 metals alone. For example, 63/37 Tin-Lead Eutectic solder melts of my irons tip at less than 180C, far, far lower than the individual melting points of tin and lead. Some new solders have melting points below 150C.....

[T.A.M.]

Yawwwwnnnn!!!!

Next truther please, TS is getting quite boring.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you were so inclined, you could research what negative affects heating oil, gypsum drywall and acid rain might have on the steel. But, you dont even need to do that - the answer was in the link in Kents recent post:



Being that I am an IPC certified soldering tech, I have a basic understanding of what the eutectic process is. Basically, 2 different metals, when combined in precisely the right proportions, have a considerably lower melting point than either of the 2 metals alone. For example, 63/37 Tin-Lead Eutectic solder melts of my irons tip at less than 180C, far, far lower than the individual melting points of tin and lead. Some new solders have melting points below 150C.....

If this particular eutectic is easy to understand, why were "ENGINEERS BAFFLED"? Why did they report evaporated steel? Why did they change the headline?

[maccy]

For those who don't know what we're talking about, (oliver), the headline on the New York Times article of Nov 29 2001 said

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC:
"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"

Evaporating steel requires temperatures of about 3000˚ C

Plausible explanation: the headline is a mistake.

Impossible explanation: the steel partially evaporated

I'd say the fact that the New York Times subsequently changed the headline indicates that they made a mistake.

Why aren't there any baffled enegineers talking about evaporated steel today?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're not attempting to profit or advance your career by way of the events of 9/11, are you? Just curious.

Haven't made a dime, spent my own money. Having said that, I see nothing at all wrong with earning money selling works of art depicting historical events.

We can also talk about Oliver Stone, and Flight 93, and Lisa Jefferson, and Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American, and the many others who are indeed profiting off of 9/11.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Plausible explanation: the headline is a mistake.

Impossible explanation: the steel partially evaporated

I'd say the fact that the New York Times subsequently changed the headline indicates that they made a mistake.

Why aren't there any baffled enegineers talking about evaporated steel today?

Impossible? LOL. Author Jim Glanz is a physicist. Barnett is an engineer. They said it was partially evaportated.

Here is another possible explanation. Prior to November 29, 2001, Barnett and Glanz didn't get the memo. They reported something interesting. Then they got the memo, and did damage control.

[stateofgrace]

We can also talk about Oliver Stone, and Flight 93, and Lisa Jefferson, and Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American, and the many others who are indeed profiting off of 9/11.

We have had this discussion before BS, clearly you have forgotten it.

Are you calling Lisa Jefferson a liar?

[TruthSeeker1234]

State of grace, your sig has a quote of mine in it. What do you suppose caused all the "shooters", or whatever you want to call them? Energetic matter that shoots out of the "collapsing" towers, and leaves thick trails of smoke behind?

[apathoid]

Impossible? LOL. Author Jim Glanz is a physicist. Barnett is an engineer. They said it was partially evaportated.
Good grief. It was partially evaporated. Click the link in Kents post above...and read it, all of it. If you still do not understand, then come back and ask...

Here is another possible explanation. Prior to November 29, 2001, Barnett and Glanz didn't get the memo. They reported something interesting. Then they got the memo, and did damage control.
Ah, good ole Smaccos Razor.....

[stateofgrace]

State of grace, your sig has a quote of mine in it. What do you suppose caused all the "shooters", or whatever you want to call them? Energetic matter that shoots out of the "collapsing" towers, and leaves thick trails of smoke behind?

Please ignore my signature just now it is mockery of your other claims.

Answer the question BS, I have asked it before.

Are you claiming Lisa Jefferson is a liar?

[LashL]

I have contacted Barnett, and Glanz. They won't talk to me.

Please provide me their contact information, a synopsis of your alleged contact with them and evidence of their alleged refusal to talk to you, and I will gladly follow up with them directly and will report the results back here. As you are well aware, I've been trying for quite some time to get you and other troofers to provide basic information about your alleged witnesses and evidence but you (and other troofers) have failed and refused to do so.

As you also know, Kent interviewed Mr. Barnett and he provided details about his interview with Mr. Barnett here. You have not provided a single syllable that refutes what Kent said about that interview or about what Mr. Barnett said in that interview.

You have provided zero details about your alleged contact with Mr. Barnett or about your alleged contact with Mr. Glanz. Please do so now. "They wouldn't talk to me" is hardly sufficient since you're slagging them. How did you contact them? When? Where? What did you write? What did they write? This isn't exaclty rocket science. It should be simple for you to reproduce your alleged communication with them in which you claim the result is that they "wouldn't talk to you" - so let's have it already.

As you are also well aware, I offered quite some time ago to interview any witnesses you (and other conspiracy believers) claim to have, assess any evidence you (and other conspiracy believers) claim that they have, record every word of it, and provide tapes and transcripts of it, and to present it all to a D.A. But not even a single troofer has proffered even a single witness, nor a single statement, nor a single piece of contact information, nor a single bit of evidence to support a single assertion that you and your fellow troofers keep spouting off on the internet about having interviewed actual witnesses whose evidence supports their beliefs.

You - personally - have failed and refused to do so, and you - personally - have failed and refused to put your alleged "evidence" where your keystrokes are.

Like it or not, that says a lot about you and it says a lot about your own non-belief in your alleged "witnesses" and "evidence". From everything you have posted thusfar, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you actually have a single witness or a single piece of evidence to support your allegations, and I have seen absolutely no basis upon which any rational being could conclude that any such witnesses or evidence exist - but my offer still stands.

Anyway, it's great info for Lash's indictments.

My indictments?

As you will recall, my offer, which still stands to any and all, is to receive the names and contact information of the independent witnesses that you and your fellow tinhatters claim to have that support your hypotheses; to work that evidence professionally; to interview each and every one of those independent witnesses you and your fellow travellers claim to have; to analyze the information; to provide you with transcripts and such of those interviews; and to present it all to a DA on your behalf (because conspiracy theorists claim that A, B, C, D, X, Y, Z, etal are guilty of criminal offences and claim that they have witnesses and evidence that would support those allegations).

So far, you haven't take me up on the offer, nor has a single one of your fellow travellers. Seems odd that you and they would let all that allegedly great and previously undisclosed evidence which allegedly supports your hypotheses just go to waste, doesn't it?

Not surprisingly, you're really trying to obfuscate when you refer to "my" indictments. That's just stupid.

My offer is and was made in the interests of truth, justice and accessibility to the justice system, which I personally believe is important and worthy of defending, even for tinhatters. This started because tinhatters here claimed that they had witnesses and evidence that was worthy of investigation and intimated that investigation of same would lead to indictment. I offered to help them along their quest. Strange that they didn't take me up on it, don't you think? Strange that you haven't either.

The offer still stands, though.

Anyone? Anyone?

[TruthSeeker1234]

OK Lash. I'll begin listing people I would like you to interview. You can then let me know which, if any, of these people you actually can interview. If and when you identify any witnesses who will consent to your interview, I will provide you with a list of questions for that witness. I would prefer that these interviews be videotaped, of course.

George W. Bush
George H.W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Phillip Zelikow
Condoleeza Rice
Larry Silverstein
Jane Garvey
Zednek Bazant
Gene Corley
Mark Loizeaux
Rudy Giuliani
Jim Glanz
Jonathan Barnett
Thomas Eagar
Eduardo Kausell
Norman Minetta

[LashL]

Answer the question BS, I have asked it before.

Are you claiming Lisa Jefferson is a liar?

My guess is that BS1234 won't answer your question directly, as has been demonstrated ever since he got here and as has been demonstrated by your previous queries to him on that particular question. My guess is that if he ever deigns to answer a direct and simple question such as yours, he will not directly say that Ms. Jefferson is a liar because he knows full well that he has no basis for making such an accusation, and he knows deep down that even he, as full blown a tinhatter as ever there was, personally does not believe that Ms. Jefferson was lying.

So, if he answers it at all, my guess is that he'll obfuscate, not answer the question directly, and leave himself open to making the same innuendo about Ms. Jefferson in the future on other threads. Like most other tinhatters, he's only interested in furthering his own agenda, no matter how many innocent people get dragged through the mud along the way, and that's where people like Ms. Jefferson come in for people like BS1234. He'll spout the usual tinhat nonsense, but without answering any questions such as yours directly; he mistakenly thinks that leaves him open to saying, "Oh, I never said she was lying", even while doing his utmost to spread the ugly insinuation all over the frigging internet to other tinhatters, without a scintilla of evidence to back up the quasi-accusation.

Personally, I think it's worse to make insinuations about people than to come right out and accuse them of wrongdoing. Maybe it's just me.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Add to interview list

Any secret service personel on duty with the president on 9/11.
Any air traffic control personel involved in 9/11.
The Coroner from Shanksville.
Any FBI agents involved handling DNA evidence from the Pentagon.

[Pardalis]

Go ahead TS.

[TruthSeeker1234]

We have had this discussion before BS, clearly you have forgotten it.

Are you calling Lisa Jefferson a liar?

Haven't forgotten. I thought she worked for 911, I was corrected that she was a GTE airphone op. She is brought up on this thread because someone was taking a harsh view of those, like Ms. Jefferson, who would profit from 9/11.

The phone calls are not a focus of my research. She could be lying, she could be honestly reporting a bogus phone call from someone she thought was Todd Beamer, or, the Todd Beamer story could be totally real. I don't know.

[LashL]

OK Lash. I'll begin listing people I would like you to interview. You can then let me know which, if any, of these people you actually can interview. If and when you identify any witnesses who will consent to your interview, I will provide you with a list of questions for that witness. I would prefer that these interviews be videotaped, of course.

George W. Bush
George H.W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Phillip Zelikow
Condoleeza Rice
Larry Silverstein
Jane Garvey
Zednek Bazant
Gene Corley
Mark Loizeaux
Rudy Giuliani
Jim Glanz
Jonathan Barnett
Thomas Eagar
Eduardo Kausell
Norman Minetta

How disingenuous can you be, BS1234?

You know full well that the offer is to interview the witnesses that you and other self proclaimed "truthseekers" claim to have whose evidence is supposedly contrary to the evidence based conclusion, to interview those witnesses that you and other "truthseekers" claim to have whose evidence supports your theories, to provide you with tapes and transcripts of same, and to take said evidence to a D.A. on your behalf.

That's a pretty generous offer. Yet you have failed entirely for weeks now to respond to it and your response now is simply silly on its face. The offer isn't to conduct an independent investigation into the evidence based conclusions which were reached by thousands of professionals in numerous fields of expertise, but to take on the evidence that you "truthseekers" claim to have that contradicts the evidence.

Of course, you knew that.

So, can I take it as given then that you do not have any such witnesses or evidence to offer since you have offered none?

[TruthSeeker1234]

The offer is to take your evidence, conduct interviews of all of your witnesses, provide tapes and transcripts pf same, package everything up professionally and within all of the relevant rules of procedure, and present it all to a D.A. on your behalf.

You don't have to lift a finger except to provide contact information and links or docs that you wish to add to the package for the D.A.



Those are some of the witnesses I'm interested in. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to bring a criminal case to the DA. No? I thought your idea is to get the perpetrators talking on the record, by your posing as a friendly interview.

Who were you talking about? William Rodriguez? The firefighters? Scott Forbes? Steven Jones? Kevin Ryan? Jim Hoffman? We already have interviews of these people. Perhaps you should restate your offer in more clear terms. Who is allowed and who is disallowed?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You know full well that the offer is to interview the witnesses that you and other self proclaimed "truthseekers" claim to have whose evidence is supposedly contrary to the evidence based conclusion

Every one of those people, and many more, have evidence that is contrary to the official story. None of those people were asked tough questions. Someone like you needs to ask the tough questions of the players, and that will generate the evidence for your DA.

[LashL]

Those are some of the witnesses I'm interested in. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to bring a criminal case to the DA. No? I thought your idea is to get the perpetrators talking on the record, by your posing as a friendly interview.

Who were you talking about? William Rodriguez? The firefighters? Scott Forbes? Steven Jones? Kevin Ryan? Jim Hoffman? We already have interviews of these people. Perhaps you should restate your offer in more clear terms. Who is allowed and who is disallowed?

You're just displaying your ignorance, (again) BS1234. Try reading for comprehension... it's pretty straightforward. Tinhatters claimed to have witnesses and evidence that they were aching to do something with but they, sadly, did not have the resources to pursue.

I offered to follow up with their witnesses and evidence at my own expense, and asked only that they provide contact information so that I could do so. I asked the same of you personally.

They all backed off when the offer was made, just like you did.

Your false, nonsensical response tonight which totally ignores the very generous and realistic offer which was made, and that pretends to be responsive to it while being wholly and completely unresponsive, isn't fooling anyone (except maybe a few idiots among the people you usually hang around with on tinhat forums, of course, since they'll believe ... well, anything}

So, not to get sidetracked here... please provide me with the contact information you have for any witness that you have whose evidence you think contradicts the evidence based conclusions, and I will be happy to interview them in accordance with the terms of the offer I made weeks ago (which hasn't changed since its inception).

As an aside, please provide me with the contact information and the details of your alleged contact with the two individuals as set out in an earlier post wrt to the two individuals who you claimed to have been in contact with but who "wouldn't talk to you". You seem to have missed addressing that part of my posts in your responses.

[Regnad Kcin]

Seems reasonable (and generous!) to me, LashL.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're just displaying your ignorance, (again) BS1234. Try reading for comprehension... it's pretty straightforward. Tinhatters claimed to have witnesses and evidence that they were aching to do something with but they, sadly, did not have the resources to pursue.


I offered to follow up with their witnesses and evidence at my own expense, and asked only that they provide contact information so that I could do so. I asked the same of you personally.

I will first ask that you cease using childish denigrations such as "tinhatter". I'm not easily offended, but it is distracting. When I read (and now as I re-read) your OP, I assumed by "winesses" you mean individuals who likely harbor knowledge that would be useful in getting to the bottom of this mess.

They all backed off when the offer was made, just like you did.

I'm not backing off, I am right here. I admit that I did not think you were serious, only because you are setting yourself up for years of full-time work, in an endevour which could easily cost tens of millions of dollars. I do not know your financial status, perhaps you are actually able to follow through.



Your false, nonsensical response tonight which totally ignores the very generous and realistic offer which was made, and that pretends to be responsive to it while being wholly and completely unresponsive, isn't fooling anyone (except maybe a few idiots among the people you usually hang around with on tinhat forums, of course, since they'll believe ... well, anything}




So, not to get sidetracked here... please provide me with the contact information you have for any witness that you have whose evidence you think contradicts the evidence based conclusions, and I will be happy to interview them in accordance with the terms of the offer I made weeks ago (which hasn't changed since its inception).

As an aside, please provide me with the contact information and the details of your alleged contact with the two individuals as set out in an earlier post wrt to the two individuals who you claimed to have been in contact with but who "wouldn't talk to you". You seem to have missed addressing that part of my posts in your responses.[/quote]


See next

[TruthSeeker1234]

Here is Barnett

"Barnett, Jonathan Ross" <jbarnett@WPI.EDU>

Here is my email to him and his response. I followed up with him, sending several emails, and never got any answers. At one point he said he would rather speak on the phone with me than email. Could this be because phone calls are not admissible in court, whereas emails are?

In any case, he did not provide me with a phone number when asked, eventually he stopped answering emails.

Depending on the time factor, the first line of questioning for Barnett is about the November 29, 2001 NY Times article. Did it or did it not originally contain the headline "STEEL MEMBERS PARTLY EVAPORATED - ENGINEERS BAFFLED . . . "?

WHo changed it? Why? When? How does acid rain and/or drywall and/or whatever raise steel to 3000C?




I am in Israel right now. I'll try to answer your questions next week when I
return to the US.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ace Baker [mailto:ace@acebaker.com]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:37 AM
To: Barnett, Jonathan Ross
Subject: Questions about 9/11

Dear Dr. Barnett:

I was referred to you by several members of a discussion board who said you
had been very helpful answering their questions about the building
collapses. I would appreciate any help you could give answering mine.

1. All three building collapses displayed a remarkable degree of radial
symmetry. This would require that all vertical supports fail at the same
time, or a least a majority of them would have to fail simultaneously in a
symmetrical pattern, correct? How do random fires and random damage account
for this?

2. There was a stream of yellow liquid metal pouring out of WTC2 just prior
to collapse, at about the 80th floor. NIST suggests that it may have been
molten aluminum, but Dr. Jones says that molten aluminum appears slivery
colored during daylight, due to its high reflectivity, and low emissivity.
Who's right?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+
9%2F11

3. Your metallurgical report shows pieces of steel with a "swiss cheese"
appearance. You attributed this to rapid oxidation in the presence of
sulfur, a eutectic reaction lowering the melting point of steel. You
suggested that this may have been due to oxidation while the steel was lying
on the ground. Are these observations consistent with the oxidation produced
by a thermate reaction? If not, how would they differ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

4. A famous photograph taken at ground zero weeks after 9/11 shows what
appears to be a large chunk of orange-to-yellow hot metal being lifted by an
excavator. Evidently this is not aluminum, as aluminum is a liquid at orange
temperatures. Do you think this was formerly molten steel and/or iron? What
is it, and how did it get that way?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_files/image004.jpg

5. We have been looking for a credible report on WTC7, without success. To
your knowledge, what is the best explanation for the collapse of WTC7?

6. The collapse of WTC1 produced pyroclastic clouds of a rapidly expanding
dust cloud. Jim Hoffman has calculated that the expansion of this dust cloud
would require far more energy than is available from gravitational potential
energy. Are his simplifying assumptions and/or calculations wrong? If so,
how so?

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

7. At the beginning of the collapse of WTC2, the top 30 (or so) stories
begin to topple over to the south and east, for about 2 seconds. This would
create tremendous angular momentum. However, instead of continuing to
rotate, the block appears to disintegrate into powder. What is the
explanation for this behavior?

I have more questions, but this is enough for now. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

[TruthSeeker1234]

Here is Jim Glanz' contact


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/james_glanz/index.html


I sent him an email via this link, asking about the headline, and never heard back. Ask him how we can obtain a copy of the November 29, 2001 article as it originally appeared. And why and when it was changed.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Here's Bazant:

z-bazant@northwestern.edu

[Alt+F4]

Tinhatters claimed to have witnesses and evidence that they were aching to do something with but they, sadly, did not have the resources to pursue.

I offered to follow up with their witnesses and evidence at my own expense, and asked only that they provide contact information so that I could do so. I asked the same of you personally.

They all backed off when the offer was made, just like you did.

Lash, you are trying to apply reason to an unreasonable situation. Even if you gave the conspiracy liars all the resources they require it wouldn't matter. They believe that every D.A. in the NY tri-state area is "in on it" and therefore would never prosecute a criminal case, no matter how strong the "evidence".

This is why their "movement" (if you want to call it that) will ultimately fail. As time goes by they have to keep adding more and more people to the conspiracy, such as D.A.s, medical examiners and government employees that weren't even in those jobs on 9/11. Eventually the conspiracy will grow so big it will have to include everyone in the United States, except the CTers.....of course.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Here are more contacts for you. As you establish interview times with these witnesses, I will provide you with lines of questioning.


Popular Mechanics
James Meigs
300 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019-5899
popularmechanics@hearst.com (popularmechanics@hearst.com)


Popular Mechanics

David Dunbar
300 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019-5899
popularmechanics@hearst.com (popularmechanics@hearst.com)


Popular Mechanics

Brad Reagan
300 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019-5899
popularmechanics@hearst.com (popularmechanics@hearst.com)





Thomas Kean (202) 478-8500
The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036

Lee H. Hamilton (202) 691-4000
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004-3027

Slade Gorton (202) 628-1700
sladeg@prestongates.com (sladeg@prestongates.com)
Preston Gates & Ellis LLP
1735 New York Ave. NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006-5221

Bob Kerrey (212) 229-5656
president@newschool.edu (president@newschool.edu)
The New School in NYC
66 W. 12th St. Rm. 800, NY, NY 10011

James R. Thompson (312) 558-7400
jthompson@winston.com (jthompson@winston.com)
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601–9703

Jamie Gorelick (202) 663-6500
Jamie.gorelick@wilmerhale.com (Jamie.gorelick@wilmerhale.com)
WilmerHale
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006

Richard Ben-Veniste (202) 263-3333
Rben-veniste@mayerbrownrowe.com (Rben-veniste@mayerbrownrowe.com)
Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw
1909 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-1101

Timothy J. Roemer (202) 682-1800
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 333, Washington, DC 20001

Fred F. Fielding (202) 719-7320

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
1776 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006

John F. Lehman (703) 418-6095
J.F. Lehman & Co.
2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 607, Arlington, VA 22202



S. Shyam Sunder (301) 975-6713
Sivaraj.shyam-sunder@nist.gov (Sivaraj.shyam-sunder@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

Richard G. Gann (301) 975-6866
Richard.gann@nist.gov (Richard.gann@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664

William Grosshandler (301) 975-2310
William.grosshandler@nist.gov (William.grosshandler@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8660, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8660

H.S. Lew (301) 975-6060
Hai.lew@nist.gov (Hai.lew@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Richard W. Bukowski (301) 975-6853
Richard.bukowski@nist.gov (Richard.bukowski@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664

Fahim Sadek (301) 975-4420
Fahim.sadek@nist.gov (Fahim.sadek@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Frank W. Gayle (301) 975-6161
Frank.gayle@nist.gov (Frank.gayle@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8550, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8550

John L. Gross (301) 975-6068
John.gross@nist.gov (John.gross@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Therese P. McAllister (301) 975-6078
Therese.mcallister@nist.gov (Therese.mcallister@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Jason D. Averill (301) 975-6078
Jason.averill@nist.gov (Jason.averill@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664

J. Randall Lawson (301) 975-6877
James.Lawson@nist.gov (James.Lawson@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8661, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8661

Harold E. Nelson (301) 975-5517
Harold.nelson@nist.gov (Harold.nelson@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664

Stephen A. Cauffman (301) 975-6051
Stephen.cauffman@nist.gov (Stephen.cauffman@nist.gov)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611


Peter Barrett (203) 758-2914
Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
1579 Straits Turnpike, Suite 2B, Middlebury, CT 06762

Philip Zelikow (434) 924-7236

Miller Center of Public Affairs
2201 Old Ivy Road, P.O. Box 400406, Charlotteville, VA 22904

Barry McDaniel (703) 961-5683
Stratesec Incorporated (formally Securacom, WTC Security Provider)
14360 Sullyfield Circle, Chantilly, Virginia 20151

Steven Kirkpatrick (505) 881-8074
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
4300 San Mateo Blvd., Suite A-220, Albuquerque, NM 87110

Zdenek P. Bazant (800) 548-2723
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl (800) 548-2723
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191

[stateofgrace]

BS What is your point?

Are you expecting people here to bombard the people on your list with questions?

Are you devoid of any rational thought process at all?

I can only speak for myself but I have no desire to get in touch with these people because I am happy with what I believe happened on 911.

The emails you have send appear to have gone unanswered, Have you not figured out why? Have you baffled them with your secret beam theory?

No BS, they are not answering because you are an internet kook who is simply dismissed as an internet kook.

[uk_dave]

Truthy, either you or I have missed the point of this thread.

YOU are supposed to furnish YOUR witnesses who support YOUR conspiracy theory, not for us to interview people and ask them YOUR nonsensical questions.

So, fess up...who have you got on your side?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthy, either you or I have missed the point of this thread.

YOU are supposed to furnish YOUR witnesses who support YOUR conspiracy theory, not for us to interview people and ask them YOUR nonsensical questions.


Lash didn't say that. He said he would interview witnesses and present findings to a DA. If Lash only meant people who are already on the truth side, he should say so. I asked him to clear that up. There is no problem talking to people like Steven Jones or Judy Wood. It's the government folks and their employees who have not had to answer any tough questions.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Perhaps Loss Leader put it best:

Oh, lord. The real answer is that, lawyer or not, nobody knows. That's because if the 9/11 conspiracy were true, it would be far, far bigger than a crime. It would be a government murdering its own citizens, lying, misappropriating money, and basically hijacking a democracy. Law just isn't built to deal with that. It would be a political issue. It would be an issue of physical power and legitimacy of government. It would require nothing short of an all-out revolution. And that has nothing to do with law.

Hear, hear.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Lash didn't say that. He said he would interview witnesses and present findings to a DA. If Lash only meant people who are already on the truth side, he should say so. I asked him to clear that up. There is no problem talking to people like Steven Jones or Judy Wood. It's the government folks and their employees who have not had to answer any tough questions.

No, he didn't. He said The offer is to take your evidence, conduct interviews of all of your witnesses, provide tapes and transcripts pf same, package everything up professionally and within all of the relevant rules of procedure, and present it all to a D.A. on your behalf. "your evidence" and "your witenesses" means that you already have them as evidence, or as witness. It does not mean "what you want for evidence" or "who you want for witnesses".

[uk_dave]

There is no problem talking to people like Steven Jones or Judy Wood.

So you want to have the evidence presented by steven jones and judy wood used to indict the current US admin on charges of murder?

Fair enough. Do you think you could get a version of wood's thesis that has her name attached?

If you can I'd say that was a fair response to the offer made by LashL. Now, let's see if we can gat a DA to run with it.

Don't hold your breath though.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So you want to have the evidence presented by steven jones and judy wood used to indict the current US admin on charges of murder?

Fair enough. Do you think you could get a version of wood's thesis that has her name attached?

If you can I'd say that was a fair response to the offer made by LashL. Now, let's see if we can gat a DA to run with it.

Don't hold your breath though.

Sorry, I misunderstood Lash's offer. Apparently Lash's offer is to help investigate the good guys. We would instead prefer to invsetigate the bad guys. Now the misunderstanding is clear.

As a general rule, with any crime, I think it helps to actually investigate the bad guys. Lash, we don't need help investigating the good guys.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are the firefighters and police still under a gag order? What about Sibel Edmunds, has hers been lifted yet?

[uk_dave]

ermmmm no truthy, the offer was to PRESENT the evidence from the 'good guys' to the DA.

So fess up the evidence.

[uk_dave]

Are the firefighters and police still under a gag order? What about Sibel Edmunds, has hers been lifted yet?

Do you REALLY want Edmunds to tell the world how the incompetence of the fbi allowed AQ terrorists to hijack planes and attack the wtc and pentagon? And then for her to explain how AQ was able to infiltrate the US security services?

Are you happy for Edmunds to tell the world that the US is vulnerable to attack from islamic extremists?

[maccy]

Sorry, I misunderstood Lash's offer. Apparently Lash's offer is to help investigate the good guys. We would instead prefer to invsetigate the bad guys. Now the misunderstanding is clear.

As a general rule, with any crime, I think it helps to actually investigate the bad guys. Lash, we don't need help investigating the good guys.

So if you suspect somebody of a bank robbery, you don't interview the witnesses first so that you can gather enough evidence to be able to arrest and charge them?

And obviously for Lash to interview somebody they need to willing to be interviewed.

In order to compel somebody to testify in a criminal matter of which they are accused you have to be able to demonstrate that there is a case to answer. Lash is offering to gather the evidence to build a case and to present it to a DA - thie means witness statements from those willing to come forward. If there is sufficient evidence, then the DA may decide to proceed and to call other witnesses.

You don't have the power to interrogate people on a hunch, however much you would like it.

Does everything in life need to be explained to you in slow painful detail?

[Kent1]

Lash if you want e-mail records from Barnett just let me know. I'd put them on CS's website, but Barnett said he would rather talk to people one by one.

I see truthseeker1234 continues to add nothing, but unfounded last ditch speculation to save his pet conspiracy.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Add nothing? Why just last night I got an email from a person who thanked me over and over for creating "Blown to Kingdom Come". She said that the song puts into words what she has been trying to convince her friends for months.

I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song, that he couldn't stop listening to it.

I get an average of about 1 or 2 emails a day from people. 90% thankful, 10% hatemail.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to exercise their free speech yet? If Pickering has the contacts, Lash should indeed interview them.

[stateofgrace]

I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song, that he couldn't stop listening to it.


I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song.He said that he couldn't stop laughing at it.

( I corrected it for you) .

[Kent1]

Add nothing? Why just last night I got an email from a person who thanked me over and over for creating "Blown to Kingdom Come". She said that the song puts into words what she has been trying to convince her friends for months.

I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song, that he couldn't stop listening to it.

I get an average of about 1 or 2 emails a day from people. 90% thankful, 10% hatemail.
Yea aftering reading your reply I strongly stand by my statements. :D
Adding nothing...(OK, maybe adding a little hate, ignorance and paranoia.)

[gumboot]

Perhaps Loss Leader put it best:



Hear, hear.


So what are you waiting for TS? Go build some barricades. Come on. Hop to it. You won't make the world a better place by sitting here online JAQing. Get into the streets. Wave a red flag, or something. Get those barricades in place.
I'll be watching the international news. I expect to hear of you.

-Gumboot

[maccy]

Yea aftering reading your reply I strongly stand by my statements. :D
Adding nothing...(OK, maybe adding a little hate, ignorance and paranoia.)

He's providing a valuable service to the deluded idiot community by giving them something to write emails about.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to talk yet? If not, Lash's plan could land them in prison. We don't want that. Still, they should have their stories investigated.

[maccy]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to talk yet? If not, Lash's plan could land them in prison. We don't want that. Still, they should have their stories investigated.

Can you provide a source that shows the firefighters aren't allowed to talk?

I see a lot of firefighter testimony in Gravy's WTC7 paper, for example.

[uk_dave]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to talk yet? If not, Lash's plan could land them in prison. We don't want that. Still, they should have their stories investigated.

Oh, not edmunds this time...... that's interesting

And these firefighters...they have a union, yes?

[LashL]

Sorry, I misunderstood Lash's offer. Apparently Lash's offer is to help investigate the good guys. We would instead prefer to invsetigate the bad guys. Now the misunderstanding is clear.

As a general rule, with any crime, I think it helps to actually investigate the bad guys. Lash, we don't need help investigating the good guys.

I do not believe that you misunderstood my offer at all. You are, as usual, being deliberately disingenuous.

The offer remains precisely as set out in the opening post, which is pretty clear.

It is not to "help investigate the good guys" - it is to take your evidence, prepare a professional and polished case with it in accordance with the rules of procedure, etc., and to present it to a D.A. for you.

It's time for you to either put up or shut up. Either you (and Russell and other tinhatters) have evidence and statements from witnesses that contradicts the evidence-based conclusion, as claimed, or you do not. If you do, send it my way and I will do exactly as I set out in my offer.

If you do not, then admit it, or at least stop pretending that you have such evidence and statements, stop being so disingenuous, and stop pretending that you are responding meaningfully to my offer when anyone can see that you are not and have not.

[LashL]

Lash if you want e-mail records from Barnett just let me know. I'd put them on CS's website, but Barnett said he would rather talk to people one by one.

I see truthseeker1234 continues to add nothing, but unfounded last ditch speculation to save his pet conspiracy.

That would be terrific, Kent. Thank you. I will send you a PM with my external email address and "real life" info. I don't blame Mr. Barnett for wanting to talk to people one by one. That is, after all, one of the most effective ways to communicate.

And yes, you're quite right that troofseeker continues to add nothing of value to this or any other thread he posts on.

[Bell]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to talk yet? If not, Lash's plan could land them in prison. We don't want that. Still, they should have their stories investigated.

Allowed to talk about what? 9/11?
Are you implying the are ordered NOT to talk about it?

Proof please.

[LashL]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to exercise their free speech yet? If Pickering has the contacts, Lash should indeed interview them.

Why do you post the same stupid questions repeatedly? There is nothing stopping firefighters from talking about their experiences, and you would know if you had done even a modicum of reading or research.

Russell claimed to have numerous firefighter witnessess and statements, as set out in the opening post of this thread (and indeed, that was the impetus for this thread, as you would know if you'd bothered to read the opening post) but he refuses to provide their names or any other information that would enable me to interview them. It turns out that he isn't interested in having any judicial authority involved in his alleged quest for "truth" and "justice".

Personally, I fail to see how troofers expect to obtain "justice" without involving the justice system.

[Gravy]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to exercise their free speech yet? If Pickering has the contacts, Lash should indeed interview them.Why not ask Dylan Avery, whose forum Russell Pickering "moderates?"

After meeting and speaking with a REAL firefighter (not an Auxillary who was fired decades ago for conduct unbecoming of a police officer), I realized that there is no gag order (we met him at the screening at St. Mark's Church on December 11th, 2005...if you had showed up, maybe you could have met him, seen what a real hero looks like)

Dylan Avery email to Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel), Feb. 14, 2006You should watch the 1 hour promo video for LCFC, in which the firefighter clearly states that there is no gag order.

[TruthSeeker1234]

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11.


OK

[Gravy]

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. OKI brought this up today at Ground Zero, and read Avery's quote that he was told by an actual firefighter that there was no gag order. Likewise, the firefighters I have asked have scoffed at that idea. Mr. Isaac did not comment. (Frankly, it's impossible to tell if he hears, or understands, anything that is said to him.)

There is NO FBI gag order on law enforcement and "fire department officials" (or the rank-and-file of the FDNY, for that matter.)

[stateofgrace]

OK

OK, What?

Are being serious BS. Are you seriously suggesting that fire-fighters and the police will not talk openly about the deaths of their comrades because they are afraid they may loose their jobs?

I am actually, physically stopping myself from writing what I really what to write and am actually fuming at your stupid and silly remarks.

Now offer up your proof, stop writing silly songs and please stop this utter nonsense.

[maccy]

It's the amazing gravy and his temporal displacement field! He provides a debunking and over 3 hours later ace posts the statement that he has debunked.

For reference, this is where TS1234 sourced his quote from:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html

[Oliver]

It's the amazing gravy and his temporal displacement field! He provides a debunking and over 3 hours later ace posts the statement that he has debunked.

For reference, this is where TS1234 sourced his quote from:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html

May i ask you about your Nick in other forums, Maccy? I
have several accounts at LCF and PFT but i´m usually
known as Oliver or Mayr... :)

[maccy]

May i ask you about your Nick in other forums, Maccy? I
have several accounts at LCF and PFT but i´m usually
known as Oliver or Mayr... :)

I'm not registered anywhere else. If I do, it'll be as maccy - assuming it's available.

[LashL]

It's the amazing gravy and his temporal displacement field! He provides a debunking and over 3 hours later ace posts the statement that he has debunked.

For reference, this is where TS1234 sourced his quote from:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html

TS has always been behind the times. He spouts the same nonsense that has long been debunked, spouts the same stupid questions that have long been answered, and continues to do so even when they have been addressed in the very thread in which he's posting his same old nonsense for the hundredth time. He seems to have an aversion to the real world, and a serious aversion to conducting even the most basic of research. Even 30 seconds "investigoogling" would answer some of his oft-repeated, long-answered nonsense, but he can't seem to do that which even the lamest of the lame troofers ultimately seem capable of doing.

I find it difficult to believe that he could possibly be as ignorant of reality, as obtuse, as uninformed, and as misinformed as he appears to be in his posts here, but then he is a dyed-in-the-wool, self proclaimed "truth" seeker, so such depths of ignorance are at least theoretically possible. Still, could anyone be as incapable of comprehension and as inept as TS appears to be?

Really?

It appears that he consistently relies upon such dubious sources as Christopher Bollyn et al for his "facts", so again, such depths of ignorance as he has exhibited here do seem at least theoretically possible. But in real life, rather than theoretically, can anyone be so obtuse?

[TruthSeeker1234]

OK, What?


stop writing silly songs . . .

Sorry, writing silly songs is how I put bread on the table, and a roof over my family's head.

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS has always been behind the times.

And he's always relied upon such dubious sources as Christopher Bollyn for his "facts".

Need I say more?

OK, there's no gag order. So get the contact info from Pickering and interview the firefighters. I was never disingenuous. By "our witnesses" I thought you meant "all relevant witnesses".

[Oliver]

I'm not registered anywhere else. If I do, it'll be as maccy - assuming it's available.

Oh, this is unusual. Most people came here after
they saw some conspiracy-things and heard about
JREF in some pro-CT forums. May i ask how you did
find this place?

You know - it´s not the easiest forum to get some
positive pro-conspiracy-replies... :)

[maccy]

Sorry, writing silly songs is how I put bread on the table, and a roof over my family's head.

You've made money out of your 9/11 songs?

I can't speak for stateofgrace, but I wouldn't dream of asking you to stop writing all the other songs you write.

[maccy]

Oh, this is unusual. Most people came here after
they saw some conspiracy-things and heard about
JREF in some pro-CT forums. May i ask how you did
find this place?

You know - it´s not the easiest forum to get some
positive pro-conspiracy-replies... :)

From reading Randi's newsletters. I'm interested in Scepticism in general. I didn't specifically come for the conspiracy stuff but I've sort of got stuck here. I'll probably spread my wings into some other forums soon.

I find trying to get to grips with the psychology of conspiracy believers quite interesting. And I've been interested in counter-cultural craziness since I read Robert Anton Wilson's dreadful Illuminatus! trilogy.

[Oliver]

From reading Randi's newsletters. I'm interested in Scepticism in general. I didn't specifically come for the conspiracy stuff but I've sort of got stuck here. I'll probably spread my wings into some other forums soon.

I find trying to get to grips with the psychology of conspiracy believers quite interesting. And I've been interested in counter-cultural craziness since I read Robert Anton Wilson's dreadful Illuminatus! trilogy.

*LOL* Well, i made some strange experiences with sceptics
and conspiracy-theorists - so if you like to know a littlebit,
i´m honored to give you my knowledge so far. :)

BTW: I prefer to watch "meaning of live" or "life of brian"
to learn something useful about "counter-cultural craziness". :D

[Oliver]

Maccy?

[stateofgrace]

Sorry, writing silly songs is how I put bread on the table, and a roof over my family's head.

Well maybe you should stick to doing what you do well rather than silly claims on internet forums Ace.

And yes you have written songs about 911, you have even put words on this very forum where you sung the praises of Jones and what was the other? “The Towers of destruction"?

So please BS don't try to take the moral high ground. You do understand that real people were involved in 911, real people with real families. All I ask is you just step back and seriously reconsider what you are doing and the reasons you do it. This may be one big game to you, a show, simple brinkmanship but making one claim after another and not listening to the answers to these claims when they are put to you is irritating.

What is the point of you coming here and people taking time to try and address your questions when you simply do not take any notice of what is said to you? You clearly believe 911 was an inside job and nothing is going to convince you other wise, so all you have to do now is offer up your proof.

[PerryLogan]

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your heart it will creep.

Now there's a song.

[W6102LA]

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your heart it will creep.

Now there's a song.
Ditto

:)

[stateofgrace]

You've made money out of your 9/11 songs?

I can't speak for stateofgrace, but I wouldn't dream of asking you to stop writing all the other songs you write.

I would like to add to what I have already written to TS. I did not ask him to stop writing songs, I asked him to stop writing silly songs.
I am sure Ace is a very talented musician and I wish him well in his musical career. I say this in all sincerity.

But to write silly songs about 911 is not on and as such I have asked him to acknowledge he as done so and will, out of respect for this affair, cease to do so.

Surely this is not too much to ask.

[Alt+F4]

You do understand that real people were involved in 911, real people with real families.[/font]

When have you seen any of these conspiracy liars show any sympathy for the victims or their families? More than often they mock the victims or imply they were involved in their own murder.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sorry, I misunderstood Lash's offer. Apparently Lash's offer is to help investigate the good guys. We would instead prefer to invsetigate the bad guys. Now the misunderstanding is clear.

As a general rule, with any crime, I think it helps to actually investigate the bad guys. Lash, we don't need help investigating the good guys.Please grow up. Everyone will be happier, including you.

Love,

RK

[Regnad Kcin]

Add nothing? Why just last night I got an email from a person who thanked me over and over for creating "Blown to Kingdom Come". She said that the song puts into words what she has been trying to convince her friends for months.

I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song, that he couldn't stop listening to it.

I get an average of about 1 or 2 emails a day from people. 90% thankful, 10% hatemail.Oh my.

[uk_dave]

The woowoos have a plan to defeat the NWO and bring to justice the evil government perps behind 911.

Is it a peoples revolution?

No

Is it an armed insurrection?

No

Could it possibly be an attempt to present compelling evidence to the US judiciary?

Sadly, no.

So, what is it?


seek_the_truth:

What Do You Think About Wearing A....

911 was an inside job shirt to school?

I think it would be great. I would be more than happy to explain to people how and why and ask them questions and tell them to demand answers. Also, I have a teacher who would hate it and is the most biased goverm=nment wtahdog in the school, like in 1984, haha.

just curious to know, thanks.

igor:
It matters what kind of school you go to. In highschools, people will mostly laugh, especially your friends. But it will make a little impression in their heads, when they skip on channels on tv and see a talk of 9/11, they might get on the pc and actually do their own independent research.

It would help a lot.


Another thing to do is get copies of LC recut and put them on teachers desks/doors in the morning before school and atleast 50% will see it.


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1086

Those crazy kids!
:tank:

[PerryLogan]

Finally...the sleeping giant of the Truth Movement awakens, rises up, and STRIKES!

And to think, we all thought they were idiots.

[stateofgrace]

Killtown sums it up in the same thread.


How about everybody wear a "911 was an inside job" t-shirt everyday everywhere until congress gives us a 1st time independent commission? Now THAT would be something!

Great idea Killtown and THAT would be something.Hope you’ve got more than one or hope your mommy has plenty of washing powder; you are going to be wearing it for some time.

[jhunter1163]

If you want to wear such a shirt, go ahead, but remember that most high schoolers here in the US watch "South Park". Prepare yourself to hear "retard" a LOT.

[tsig]

Add to interview list

Any secret service personel on duty with the president on 9/11.
Any air traffic control personel involved in 9/11.
The Coroner from Shanksville.
Any FBI agents involved handling DNA evidence from the Pentagon.

And the entire population of the US.

[tsig]

Add nothing? Why just last night I got an email from a person who thanked me over and over for creating "Blown to Kingdom Come". She said that the song puts into words what she has been trying to convince her friends for months.

I got another mail from a guy who said tears were streaming down his face from the song, that he couldn't stop listening to it.

I get an average of about 1 or 2 emails a day from people. 90% thankful, 10% hatemail.

How sweet.

Thaks for sharing

[tsig]

Anybody know if the firefighters are allowed to talk yet? If not, Lash's plan could land them in prison. We don't want that. Still, they should have their stories investigated.

Well, the dead ones can"t.

[Loss Leader]

I get an average of about 1 or 2 emails a day from people. 90% thankful, 10% hatemail.


365 x 1.5 = 547.5
547.5 x 0.9 = 492.75

493 people a year won over by Ace's songs about a government conspiracy to bring down the WTC. There are 300,000,000 people in America. Figure that you need 10% for a large enough minority to goad some sort of government action. That's 30,000,000 people. At 493 people a year, TS1234 will have brought about revolution in ...

60,852 years.

Yeah, the calculation's all wrong but it isn't any more screwy than looking at a still photo and trying to estimate the mass of a dust cloud.