Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Mar 19, 2017.
And per your words above, those firefighters that don't support it have no integrity right Bobby?
Was there something you didn't understand about my post, especially this part?
But I will point out you skipped over my hypocrisy claim about you as anticipated.
Please quote (quotation and name) 1 firefighter who says he/she does not support a legitimate investigation into 9/11. Having said that, I'll repeat, anyone who is reasonably aware and does not support a legitimate investigation into 9/11 has no integrity, I don't care who that person is and I'll add such a person is either inhuman or has some kind of sinister agenda. Do you disagree? If you do, you validate my point.
I don't need a specific quotation and name Bobby. I have a quote from the entire fire department that they posted in a public venue. See below.
The above disclaimer is in direct response to the resolution from the fire commisioners below. There are seven paragraphs. Please tell me which "fire commissioner opinions" contained in these seven paragraphs within the resolution quoted below you think the fire department doesn't necessarily agree with. So much so that they had to make a public disclaimer.
Tell you what. Why don't you grow a set and call Mr. Gioia and find out what he thinks of the disclaimer put out by the fire department and why he doesn't have their full support like the commissioners and AE 9/11 claimed they had.
I'll send an email to the fire department and ask them specifically if it's the investigation into the buildings being brought down by pre-planted explosives and incendiaries part that they don't agree with or something else.
They lied Bobby. Plain and simple.
They made a claim in the AE/911 article that they had the "fire district’s full backing of the (presumably) ongoing grand jury investigation". And then the discalaimer came out. That's not "full backing". I don't care how you want to spin it.
What I don't support a 9/11 investigation to try and prove a preconcieved "explosives and incendiaries" conclusion based on crappy evidence.
I'm sensing desperation to try to convince me of some kind of trivial conspiracy theory. I will address this one last time and if you persist, I will ignore your posts on this line of discussion. It is wholly irrelevant to 9/11 and the legal initiative.
Thanks for confirming my point, there is no such quote because none exists. The key word being LEGITIMATE.
Yes I know and it says nothing about not supporting a legitimate investigation into 9/11, as already explained and as anyone who can read can see.
Tell you what, why don't YOU grow a pair and do that since it's YOUR concern, not mine.
Exactly, go for it since YOU're concerned about that. And since it's exactly the point I made and what they said, as anyone can read:
The opinions of the Franklin Square and Munson Board of Fire Commissioners does not necessarily reflect the opinions ... YOU decided to take the leap. And you did so BEFORE assessing what their point was really all about. But by all means, post their response here if it will make you feel better about your predetermined conclusion.
There are several key incorrect points raised with regard to the above, I'll address them:
1. The truth is you're terrified that any investigation into 9/11, especially a legitimate one, might conclude that the official story is false, partially or wholly. Or conversely, you have a specific agenda, as I correctly surmised and characterized. I also noted that you failed to answer the question as written and tried to dance around it by changing what I asked you.
2. The legal objective is NOT to prove anything other than to try to reveal the TRUTH about what really happened on 9/11 AND to expose the LIES perpetrated by the US government about 9/11. That has always been the objective and always will be. Note the primary objective of AE911T as stated on their website. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a legitimate investigation that tries to prove a predetermined conclusion. And that's what the US government did with respect to 9/11. Any such investigation would naturally be illegitimate.
3. The "crappy evidence" that you believe is "crappy" consists of over 150 corroborating eyewitness claims of explosions, supported by a host of other evidence, including physical and dozens of corroborating eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel/metal, supported by other evidence, including physical, as well as expert witness claims/analysis that contradict and/or question the official story about 9/11. As well as the extreme lack of key evidence as demonstrated by the multiple FOIA requests. And far more ... Most, if not all the evidence strongly indicates that the 3 towers were control demolished on 9/11. The evidence filed (which is only the tip of the iceberg) is typical of any courtroom EVIDENCE (overwhelming at that) that would normally be filed preliminarily in any legal action, never mind a special grand jury petition and a lawsuit vs the FBI and DOJ. Regardless, even if the 3 towers were not control demolished, the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that the official 9/11 story is NOT based on any legitimate investigation and that one is absolutely required by any standard.
None of the above was ever legitimately investigated by either the 9/11 Commission or NIST. The 9/11 Commission never mentioned any of it in their report. They admitted to "approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security classified files." Classified as in the 9/11 Commission were not allowed access under direction of the Bush administration. And NIST publicly denied the existence of explosion and molten steel eyewitness claims, never mind investigated the claims. You want to talk about "crappy evidence", what do you figure that was? In what world would that be legitimate?
An interview with Franklin Square and Munson Fire District Commissioner Christopher Gioia:
Please note that the opinions of Franklin Square and Munson Fire District Commissioner Christopher Gioia do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else lol.
According to Mick West, dictator of a good old boys discussion forum called Metabunk (designed to support/defend the OCT and criticize (and often censor and even ban) anyone and everything that contradicts or questions it), Commissioner Christopher Gioia wrote the following via the site's contact form and requested that it be posted:
Dear Mr. West,
This message is in regard to your website and the posts from members of your group regarding the passage of a 911 resolution by the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District. Allow me this opportunity to respond back. First and foremost, the Fire District supports the petition that was accepted by the U.S. Attorney for the southern District of N.Y. Pursuant to Federal law the U.S. attorney has to convene a Federal Grand Jury to investigate the evidence presented in the Petition. If the Grand Jury looks over the evidence and decides that it is baseless then the issue will have been settled once and for all and to my satisfaction. If the Grand Jury Finds that the Petition has merit then let the facts dictate the direction the investigation will follow. I'm sure you would agree that if someone in your family was murdered for arguments sake, perhaps your wife or your children,and 18 years later there was new evidence to be looked at, you would want to look at it and decide for yourself if it was relevant. The testimony of Firemen, Policemen, and first responders made that day on 9/11 must not be ignored. The physical evidence that remains must not be ignored. My opinion and those of the people who would say otherwise doesn't matter. Its what can be proven in a court of law that matters. My friends were murdered Mr. West and I will never forget the stench of death that pervaded the air for months afterward as we searched in vain at the pile. So you and your staff are most certainly entitled to your opinions and I respect that but do not sit there in the comfort of your homes and pass judgement on me. I want justice for my murdered friends and I say if you and your staff are true Americans then you will support The Fire Department and the Federal Grand Jury Investigation. Thank you for allowing me to respond back.
Commissioner and Ex-Chief
This is just FYI so I'm not going to get into the various other posts from that site. What I am wondering though is if the above is factual and uncensored, what prompted Gioia to write it.
Bob, do you know how grand jury selection works? I'm not American so I don't know.
The entire system is so corrupt these arch-criminals can and will do everything in their power to prevent the jury recommending a new investigation, and that obviously includes stacking that jury.
Allegedly randomly within a federal jurisdiction in this case:
Grand juries are not selected and rejected in the same manner as civil or criminal cases. I believe that as long as a potential juror passes the qualification criteria, he/she is selected. The problem with grand juries is that the proceeding a secretive process and the prosecutor can sway a grand jury since there is no opposition. Having said that a grand jury's powers are quite broad. This (9/11) is a very unique case to say the least and there is no telling how such a grand jury might proceed. The saying is that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich and the evidence presented in the petition (with more to come) compelling an investigation is overwhelming. I do disagree with Christopher Gioia's opinion where he wrote:
If the Grand Jury looks over the evidence and decides that it is baseless then the issue will have been settled once and for all and to my satisfaction.
For me the evidence is so overwhelming that it cannot be baseless and therefore cannot be settled to MY satisfaction, at least not if an unbiased legitimate investigation is conducted. Furthermore, it can't be settled if no one is privy to how the case was deliberated.
I do agree with you though that the American (in)justice system is hopelessly broken and thoroughly corrupt.
For additional information on this:
158. Impaneling Special Grand Juries
As provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3331(a), the district court in every judicial district having more than four million inhabitants must impanel a special grand jury at least once every eighteen months (unless a special grand jury is then sitting); and the district court must also impanel a special grand jury when the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or a designated Assistant Attorney General certifies in writing to the chief judge of the district that in his/her judgment, a special grand jury is necessary "because of criminal activity in the district." (See 28 C.F.R. § 0.59 under which the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division is designated to make certifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3331.)
District courts are authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(b) to impanel additional special grand juries when the special grand juries already impaneled have more business than they can properly handle. When impaneling additional special grand juries, a court should make a finding as to the need; and a court should always make it clear that the special grand jury is being impaneled under 18 U.S.C. § 3331 (and is therefore not subject to the limitations of a regular grand jury). See Wax v. Motley, 510 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1975).
The special grand jury has a duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) "to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district." Such alleged offenses may be brought to the jury's attention by the court or by any attorney appearing for the United States to present evidence to the jury. It is incumbent upon any such government attorney to whom it is reported that a Federal offense was committed within the district, if the source of information so requests, to refer the information to the special grand jury, naming the source and apprising the jury of the attorney's action or recommendation regarding the information.
To keep the readers updated on 9/11 legal actions, as to the Special Grand Jury Petition filed in the Southern District of New York, it has been stated by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry that they will file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. I'm guessing we will be receiving an update on that perhaps next week. As to the lawsuit vs the FBI and the DOJ, I have reviewed some recently filed court documents from the District Court for the District of Columbia and these are a Motion to Dismiss (mostly based on the alleged Plaintiffs' lack of standing and a claim that they have fulfilled their mandated requirements) filed by the FBI/DOJ and a 45-page First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by the Lawyers' Committee. Anyone with a Pacer account can read these documents. The Lawyers' Committee claims they will keep us informed on their website so I will not post these documents here until they do.
Thanks for the updates Bob.
At 3:09. "the evidence is dispositive. In legal jargon, dispositive means no-brainer ..." - Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry President David R. Meiswinkle.
FYI, I confirmed that a Mandamus Petition (Case 1:19-cv-08312-PGG) was filed in the Southern District of New York by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry vs William P. Barr, US Attorney General and Geoffrey Berman, US Attorney for the Southern District. Once again, I will not post it here until the Lawyers' Committee posts the document on their website. If you have a subscription to Pacer, all documents are public record and available to you.
Separate names with a comma.