9/11 - The Legal Initiative

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No dodge Shiner, I answered your ignorant questions. No one ever "authors" facts, that is as idiotic as it gets. If you want to know who all the people are that discovered and/or confirmed all these massive NIST failures I can provide a list of most of them but that's not what you asked for nor are you really looking for any answers. You're already operating under the delusion that there's no OCT and no grand jury investigation as you claim.

    I never said any such ad hominem invention of yours, they're not MY facts, I don't own them and who are you "leaning on" for what YOU believe are facts? The US government of course, that's as pathetic as it gets.

    No it's you who lives in fantasyland, YOU bought the phony OCT and defend it 24/7 despite the enormous amount of evidence that proves it's impossible.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct, so what didn't you understand about:


    So first you deny the source material was listed for you and at the same time you question the source material, the very same source material NIST used. But yet you claim the 9/11 investigations were "adequate" despite that you question the source material NIST used. You don't even understand that this has nothing to do with what actually happened, it's strictly about NIST's failure to properly investigate what happened to the 3 WTC towers including NIST's failure to investigate for controlled demolition, of which there is overwhelming physical evidence and eyewitness and expert witness testimony being presented to the grand jury. And as a result, a demand for a legitimate investigation, it's not a conclusion. The NIST theory is on TRIAL here, do you get it?

    Do you understand basic physics Shiner? Based on your posts it's obvious you are clueless. What kind of ****ing engineer doesn't understand that 47 story buildings about an acre in size just don't free fall from fire? How much more basic can this be for you?

    Yeah the ones NIST admitted they omitted from the drawings and failed to account for to formulate their theory. Right, STIFFENERS, you do know what those are eh Mr. "engineer" who knows nothing about physics?
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    so the only thing you accept as a fact is something that comes from someone else? Brilliant.
    that is extremely rare, so rare it vitually does not happen and when it does it gets engineering approval first, wth did you come up with that crap? citation?
    Very oft? Citation?
    All what physics? I never viewed cutter charges as a monumental physics problem
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2018
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what names should be at the top of the list for the grand jury to subpoena to testify in 2019? It will not be made public but my guess is that it will be leaked.

    If it were my choice I would place Mr. "Pull It" Lucky Larry Silverstein as the #1 to be questioned. The video testimony of the late Barry Jennings should also be heard by the grand jury as well as in person interviews with Michael Hess.



    Willie Rodriguez would also be high on the list.



    Kevin McPadden would also be a person of very high interest.



    As Marlene Cruz.



    And Indira Singh



    These are just some of my suggestions, there are of course many, many more, none of which appear in the 9/11 Commission Report.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Recommended subpoena of expert testimony:

    Tom Sullivan:



    Dr. Leroy Hulsey:



    Roland Angle:



    And of course Shyam Sunder:



    And his sidekick John Gross:



    To name just a few.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Expert Testimony - Part II:

    The NIST reports face an insurmountable obstacle in legal land for any defense strategy, they just don't pass the legal smell test. In fact they fail miserably. What is also true is that many of the articles written that dispute the NIST reports are legally sustainable. The smell test is something called the Daubert test, a standard established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113, S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2nd 469 (1993) for determining if expert testimony is admissible in any criminal proceeding or not. There is a lengthy technical article written on the subject that is available for anyone to review the details on the subject called The Cause of the Destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...oped-in-daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceutical/

    In summary (for those who don't want to read the article), what it means is that in science, what is universally accepted as valid must follow all the principles of the scientific method. One of the primary components of the scientific method is peer review. Without peer review, it can be determined that the scientific method has not been employed and cannot be considered expert testimony and must be rejected by an impartial judge as unreliable.

    The NIST reports have never been peer reviewed and NIST has done everything it can to make peer review impossible by refusing to disclose ALL their data and models, denying them under FOIA request. In fact these reports would fail under peer review anyway given the many peer reviewed scientific articles written challenging the conclusions of all the NIST reports. The exact opposite is true for many of the scientific studies/articles that have been written in challenge of the NIST reports. One such key study written by Dr. Leroy Hulsey's team will soon be available and entered into the court record.
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    wake me from my slumber when the grand jury actually convenes ... and I promise to shave off my waste length beard when Hulsey actually produces a report ... his grad students are having grandchildren already ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems only ONE newspaper is willing to report on the grand jury investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. And of course it's a very local newspaper called WestView News. The puppet MSM suppresses all news stories that contradict or questions the OCT.

    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/783-the-little-newspaper-that-could

    Grand Jury Should Investigate World Trade Center Explosions On 9/11

    https://westviewnews.org/2018/06/grand-jury-should-investigate-world-trade-center-explosions-on-911/
     
    Eleuthera likes this.

Share This Page