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:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moving on. It's painfully obvious the US Attorney is caught between a rock and a hard place. He has been very silent since his letter claiming he will abide by the law and initiate a grand jury investigation. So he's stalling and probably hopes this will all go away. But these attorneys are not stupid and they're not going to go away anytime soon. So they are threatening a Mandamus action if nothing is forthcoming soon.

    If we hear nothing from your office regarding the status of our First Amended Petition (and its supplements), then we are left to assume the worst, that the U.S. Attorney has not and will not submit our information to the Special Grand Jury. We would prefer to believe the best, based on a status report from your office, rather than assuming the worst based on months of silence.

    The Board of Directors of our organization will be meeting again soon to consider how we will proceed on this important matter, including our civil litigation option of filing a federal court petition under the federal mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. As you are aware, the federal mandamus statute 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”. As you may also be aware, there has been previous litigation based on the mandamus statute by citizens who sought to compel the U.S. Attorney to comply with the duty imposed on U.S. Attorneys by 28 U.S.C. § 3332(a) to report information about federal crimes provided by the citizens to a special grand jury. As the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has noted:

    18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) creates a duty on the part of the United States Attorney that runs to the plaintiffs, and the breach of that duty gives the plaintiffs standing to seek its enforcement. …

    To argue, as the government does … that the prosecutor has total discretion in deciding what information to present to the grand jury flies in the face of the Act’s legislative history. …

    Thus both the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) and its legislative history indicate that Congress intended to remove the prosecutor’s discretion in deciding whether to present information to the grand jury. He retains discretion with respect to how he acts and what he recommends concerning that information.

    In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199, 201, 205-06 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). We are hoping to avoid the necessity of a mandamus litigation. In order to do so, we will need to hear from you.


    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...12-mar-2019-persons-supplement-cover-letter/#
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BOB??

    Which NIST documents talk about the KIPS mentioned in both points above? Which page/s and which document/s?

    Which one Bob? It's on your list, where did you get it from?
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Post #151 applies to you as well.
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob, it's a painfully simple question. If you got it from the video, as implied, where in the 80 minute spin is it found and which document. If you are so convinced of your case, identify it properly. You seem to be unable to do so, which suggests there may be other "mistakes" within your often quoted blue list.
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BM

    It's painfully obvious that sniping is all you have besides 'ad hom' attacks. You have no evidence on your side to support the official narrative. All the facts contradict your chosen position.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The case that the OCT is a fraud has been properly identified in overwhelming ways, I don't own it, it stands on its own merit. I merely posted some of that overwhelming evidence in this section of the forum. As much as what has been posted is overwhelming, there's a lot more that hasn't been posted and even more that has yet to be exposed. And that's the purpose of the grand jury investigation, to BEGIN to expose the 9/11 crime for what it really was/is.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11-the-legal-initiative.500060/

    As stated, none of this is for you, you're so convinced the OCT is fact that no evidence can contradict it in your mind.

    "None are so blind as those who will not see."

    That's very possible and only a legitimate investigation can correct any "mistakes". Having said that, the "mistakes" are tiny compared to the incontrovertible facts that expose the OCT as a fraud.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BOB? You seem to be having a problem here. You are doing everything but answer the really simple question. You have made an assumption based on hearsay haven't you? I've done it in blue to help you feel at ease:-

    Which NIST documents talk about the KIPS mentioned in both points above? Which page/s and which document/s?

    Now for the 4th time of asking, supply the NIST document references. Both points state categorically that the origin of the claim is NIST and I would like to confirm the accuracy of your list for myself. What are you afraid of?
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can ask me 400 times and you're going to get the same answer. I don't do your bidding and it's not my job. If you're really that interested you have the option of doing the research yourself or contact Roland Angle, the person who conducted the presentation. If you watched the video you will notice I'm not in it and I can guarantee I had nothing to do with it. I'm 100% confident Roland Angle can answer your phony demand.

    Please spare me the BS, you're so full of it, you're not interested in doing any such thing.

    As for me I'm fully confident appropriate experts have done extensive research on the subject. If I have to choose between the US government/NIST and AE911T, I'm sure you can guess which entity I trust and which I don't. There's far more than "KIPS" that prove beyond any doubt that the OCT is a massive fraud.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,760
    Likes Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    83
    as usual you havent done your homework very well
    true, I took one glance and can tell them where you got that from, but I wont, I prefer they continue to prove to the world how defective their research really is. I look at it like truthers 2 OCTers 0
    .
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Pathetic Bob. You don't know do you! You just believe the "truther" because he's a "truther". Not very impressive, but true to form.

    Your failure to reply is dressed up as indignation, but it still doesn't alter the real issue here. You don't know where it came from.

    Bullshit. You believe the "experts" that reinforce your fully biased claims. Or are you that far down the rabbit hole that you can't even read conflicting assessments!

    Yes, but when presenting evidence to the Grand Jury, one would expect not to get the "go find it yourself", look over here, this is more of the same. Your evasion on this matter is rather ridiculous.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The guy's an engineer and an expert with decades of experience, you're no one who matters. He's done extensive research and you didn't. You bought the OCT despite the overwhelming evidence that it's a fraud. Nothing you post changes that. This idiotic "truther" labeling that you use to denigrate people who don't buy the OCT you're in love with is just that, idiotic. One who isn't a "truther" is a liar. Using Orwellian terminology does not change English language definitions, it's merely a weapon used by authoritarianism to indoctrinate and control the gullible into subservience.

    "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." - George Orwell, "1984"

    LOL, I posted exactly where it came from, the Roland Angle presentation. Do you need me to take you by the hand and point to the exact time(s) Angle mentioned it? Sorry, that's not my job either.

    Whatever that means. If you believe the overwhelming evidence filed with the petition is incorrect or a lie and you're terrified that the grand jury might operate on a fallacy you have the right to file an Amicus Curiae brief explaining your position. Pushing your hot air in this forum and/or attacking me is an exercise in futility. It won't change any of the facts.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So are all the NIST engineers who worked on this. They don't count, they must be in on it presumably! Speaking of which...……..

    You want to quote Orwell at me? Try this one then:-

    "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself."

    But you and all the other anti-establishment conspiracy theorists expect to be believed when you tell the world of a conspiracy involving a cast of some considerable number of people.

    LOL? Bob, you just confirmed exactly what I said. He spoke you believed it. You didn't check it and you have nothing but his say so. I doubt you even understand what he is talking about. But what the hell, he's on your "side" so it must be right.

    Oh Bob spare me your wounded soul - you aren't being attacked. You're being asked to show the source of your spammed blue list. It's fine that you don't have one.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    However the OCT must be believed because it comes from authority and authority must never be questioned because authority always tells the truth. Is that what you're really trying to say? 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy no matter who you or I think was involved. And there is a conspiracy to falsify and suppress the facts about 9/11, that is an incontrovertible fact supported by a mountain of evidence. By your failure to question the OCT and defend it nearly daily you are fully complicit.

    And authority spoke and YOU believed it.

    You don't want to check it and you have nothing but their say so.

    If Roland Angle didn't exist, there's still an overwhelming amount of evidence the OCT is a fraud. You're just trying to find any nonsense to redirect the fraud and point some kind of finger at me. Sorry I had nothing to do with 9/11 or NIST's fraud or the Roland Angle presentation. It's not about me, never was and never will be.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some highlights from the supplement to the grand jury petition:

    Numerous First Responders reported seeing and hearing explosions at the WTC on 9/11

    As explained in the Lawyers’ Committee’s First Amended Petition, due to the circumstances and timing and specific details observed and reported by these First Responders, these explosions could not be explained by plane impacts or resultant office fires.

    The First Responders reports on 9/11 included: “Bombs,” “explosions” at the lowest level and the highest level of the buildings before the collapses, flames being blown out, a “synchronized deliberate” kind of collapse, like a “professional demolition,"

    It is very unlikely that these consistent specific observations, described in more detail in the Lawyers’ Committee’s First Amended Petition, would all have been mistaken perceptions or false reports coming from professional First Responders, and these reports cannot be explained by only a gravity-driven collapse caused by plane impacts and office fires. These witnesses have material information relating to the use of pre-placed explosives and/or incendiaries at the WTC on 9/11.

    On 9/11, some WTC tenants and visitors, as well as some firefighters, also reported pre-plane-impact explosions in the lobby and basement. “But all you had to do was look around,” one firefighter stated. “It was obvious something had happened right there in the lobby.” A second firefighter stated, “You just saw that all of the windows were blown out. The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby.”3

    In some of these statements, the witnesses make clear that the explosion in the basement or lobby occurred before the plane impacts, which occurred at much higher levels in WTC1 and WTC2. William Rodriguez is one such key witness to WTC pre-plane-impact basement level explosions in WTC14 who has material information that would be useful to the Special Grand Jury, as does Kenneth Summers and Philip Morelli. Mr. Rodriguez, who has been widely praised for his heroic efforts to save others on 9/11 also offered to provide to the 9/11 Commission a list of names of several other witnesses to explosions at the WTC on 9/11 but the Commission never asked him to provide those witness names. The Special Grand Jury should.

    A New York Channel 7 reporter stated: “The ladies who are with me were in the World Trade Center, in the first building [WTC1], and escaped through the lobby. They report what they believe was a bomb in the lobby.” One WTC1 lobby witness stated: “And even the turnstile was burnt and was sticking up. And they just told us to run.” A second WTC1 lobby witness stated “And as we were coming out we passed the lobby and there was no lobby, so I believe the bomb hit the lobby first and a couple of seconds and then the first plane hit.”5 Another witness told ABC News on 9/11 that “A fireball emerged from the elevator [in the] lobby and was coming toward me.”6

    A WTC employee also experienced the pre-plane-impact basement-level explosions first in WTC1 and then also in WTC2.9 In addition, in interviews prior to his post-9/11 death, the late Barry Jennings stated that he witnessed explosions inside WTC7 on 9/11 while he was trapped in WTC7, before either WTC1 or WTC2 had collapsed.10 Likewise, Michael Hess of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management, who was trapped in WTC7 with Mr. Jennings, may have material information relevant to the crimes reported by the Lawyers’ Committee. All of the above witnesses to explosions are persons who have information material to the Special Grand Jury’s inquiry.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some absolutely are in on and perpetrated the fraud, especially Shyam Sunder and John Gross, the lead engineers. That's been proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. These two criminals and whichever ones at NIST are fully complicit in a conspiracy to defraud Americans and the world.






    18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3): US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
    matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
    judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
    and willfully –

    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
    same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years
    or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
    defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or
    both.

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001

    Hopefully the grand jury will issue subpoenas for these 2 criminals.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I forgot this one:

    27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

    Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

    28. NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

    In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.


    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    John Gross photographed standing on a pile of WTC7 steel debris that showed obvious signs of corrosion.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    how many mistakes did you make in this single post Bobby? ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None that I’m aware of. Compared to your whopper endorsement of the OCT, I wouldn’t be asking anyone about “mistakes” if I were you.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let's see, the implication is that I made numerous mistakes in a single post, like you're actually worried about this. So as far as I'm concerned the post is 100% mistake free.

    1. The 2 quotes are clearly from a list of NIST FAQs.
    2. The link is clearly from the list of NIST FAQs.
    3. The photo is authentic, nothing is doctored. The only thing added to the photo is a caption which is 100% accurate.
    4. The steel is absolutely from WTC7 since NIST claims in the FAQ that is if it was from WTC1 or WTC2, it would be "painted red and contain distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics" which are not seen in the photo.
    5. The steel itself shows obvious signs of extreme temperature effect such as melting and/or another form of corrosion from some sort of chemical agent (a thermitic product is one such agent that could have affected the steel in the manner seen).
    6. John Gross clearly claimed he never heard of any molten steel claims, that was captured on video (see post #165, second video).
    7. The FAQ answers to both questions 27 and 28 are obvious LIES.
    8. John Gross's claim that he never heard of molten steel claims is clearly a LIE for a couple of reasons. First NIST claims they interviewed many eyewitnesses yet John Gross did not come across even one who claims to have seen molten steel, not even FEMA investigator Abolhassan Astaneh? And furthermore, he is seen standing on a pile of steel that clearly looks like it had melted at one end.

    So if there is a "mistake", I certainly don't see even one. So please enlighten me if YOU see one, never mind "many".
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No. Occam's razor. If the most complicated, extremely dodgy and ridiculously contrived alternative was easier than what explanation was given, I would probably entertain it.

    Bob, you are actually sounding a little desperate with your veiled insults. YOU are the one posting this mind numbing nonsense on a daily basis. You can't answer a simple straight question and you come across as a whirling dervish, flailing your arms around at anyone who dares contradict you. There may well be some dodgy goings on, that's government departments for you. I guess I'm not as paranoid as you and all the other "truthers".

    Occam spoke and it sounded the most plausible explanation. You and your ilk spoke and it didn't.

    I did check it. There were real planes, no military planes, no explosives, no nukes, no space weapons, hijackers, lots of damaged buildings, 3 collapsed and 3 crashed planes.

    Reminds me of that sketch by Monty Python - What have the Romans done for us.

    I'm actually asking you to validate one part of your very often posted wall of blue things. To date, you've just quoted some hearsay.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I'm so sorry that contradicting and questioning the OCT is "mind numbing" for you. Better not read any of it anymore then before your mind suffers total paralysis. I don't post anything for the likes of you anyway, don't pay attention, it's detrimental to your health.

    Yes I understand completely, Authority = Occam's Razor. That's what I said it is for you.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, BM101 invokes Occam's Razor in defense of the official fable. Best humor of the day so far! :applause:

    Occam's Razor destroys the official narrative at every turn.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #1 ... you stated the steel from WTC 7 was undistinguished ... yet here is john Gross with alleged steel from WTC7 ... #2 ... what does corrosion have to do with anything? ... #3 is an add on ... where have I ever endorsed your fictional OCT? ...
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're doing neither. You are making false claims and providing questions that have been already answered.

    It was a figure of speech Bob, it would take more than your repetitious rambling to paralyse my mind.

    Exactly who do you post it for?

    Bob, clearly you do not understand. Occam's Razor is the simplest explanation with all things being equal. It doesn't equate to authority, it equates to the explanation that doesn't requires some preposterous and convoluted activity. Such as plane part sprinkling teams, DNA manufacturers, demolition teams invisibly setting their charges in plane-impact proof positions etc. Yours is an enormous list of fail and it is quite the most substantially risible explanation of all. If the official story asked me to believe such absurd claims, it would not be the simplest explanation anymore. I'm sure even you can distinguish between the two.

    NOT OCCAM <----Click

    I'm actually asking you to validate one part of your very often posted wall of blue things. To date, you've just quoted some hearsay.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Obviously there were 4 planes, but the one crashing in a field didn't hit a building.
     

Share This Page