I know I'm skipping around, but this document is an official FBI transcript of the cell phone calls made by Todd Beamer on 9/11/2001.
Flight 93 had supposedly crashed landed at 10:03:10 on 9/11/2001.
Can anyone explain to me how Todd Beamer made cell phone calls to a residence in New Jersey at the following times?
11:07
12:45
13:37
14:22
14:43
14:51
15:30
15:32
15:48
16:02
16:05
16:13
16:18
16:54
17:37
19:05
19:56
20:58
All of these calls lasted less than 1 minute, but were rounded up for billing purposes, as all/most cell phone companies do.
Is it safe to say that Todd Beamer was told to keep his cell phone conversations under 1 minute in order for them to not be traced?
I believe so. I'm hoping someone call tell me differently though, or explain how a man that supposed died at 10:03:10 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 made cell phone calls up to 8:58 PM the same day.
0
I know I'm skipping around, but this document is an official FBI transcript of the cell phone calls made by Todd Beamer on 9/11/2001.
Flight 93 had supposedly crashed landed at 10:03:10 on 9/11/2001.
Can anyone explain to me how Todd Beamer made cell phone calls to a residence in New Jersey at the following times?
11:07
12:45
13:37
14:22
14:43
14:51
15:30
15:32
15:48
16:02
16:05
16:13
16:18
16:54
17:37
19:05
19:56
20:58
All of these calls lasted less than 1 minute, but were rounded up for billing purposes, as all/most cell phone companies do.
Is it safe to say that Todd Beamer was told to keep his cell phone conversations under 1 minute in order for them to not be traced?
I believe so. I'm hoping someone call tell me differently though, or explain how a man that supposed died at 10:03:10 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 made cell phone calls up to 8:58 PM the same day.
I was going to withhold this information until someone got a bit further along in debunking my NoC theory about Flight 77, but since it appears no one is willing to do that, I'm going to throw this out there as well.
This is a document from the NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) which details every action of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001. It's 36 pages long, but does contain quite an interesting line of text:
"The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight. "
Adding to the already overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 was not hijacked and did not hit the Pentagon, it now appears that the cockpit door of Flight 77 was never opened after takeoff.
Can anyone explain to me how a commercial flight can be hijacked if the cockpit door was never opened?
Oh, that's right. It was never hijacked to begin with.
What page is that bolded portion on smdio, I don't see it in the report you linked?
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Can't sleep.
I was going to withhold this information until someone got a bit further along in debunking my NoC theory about Flight 77, but since it appears no one is willing to do that, I'm going to throw this out there as well.
This is a document from the NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) which details every action of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001. It's 36 pages long, but does contain quite an interesting line of text:
"The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight. "
Adding to the already overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 was not hijacked and did not hit the Pentagon, it now appears that the cockpit door of Flight 77 was never opened after takeoff.
Can anyone explain to me how a commercial flight can be hijacked if the cockpit door was never opened?
Oh, that's right. It was never hijacked to begin with.
What page is that bolded portion on smdio, I don't see it in the report you linked?
SMIDDYO!!!!!!!!!!! your pointless paste wasted 40 seconds of my time. Not one mention of the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Post #1083 will live on forever as the dumbest thing ever said ever. Smiddyo thinks the library of congress is a congressional committee. HAHAHAHAHA puts a smile on my face every time I read it. Please smiddyo who heads this library of congress? Please Please Please answer or not I will keep bringing this to the attention of everybody anytime I get the chance. I have a friend at the post gazette I am thinking of calling and some girl who works for me is trying to get a hold of tosh.0 to try and ask you to enlighten us about how one goes about testifying in front of the library of congress.
0
SMIDDYO!!!!!!!!!!! your pointless paste wasted 40 seconds of my time. Not one mention of the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Post #1083 will live on forever as the dumbest thing ever said ever. Smiddyo thinks the library of congress is a congressional committee. HAHAHAHAHA puts a smile on my face every time I read it. Please smiddyo who heads this library of congress? Please Please Please answer or not I will keep bringing this to the attention of everybody anytime I get the chance. I have a friend at the post gazette I am thinking of calling and some girl who works for me is trying to get a hold of tosh.0 to try and ask you to enlighten us about how one goes about testifying in front of the library of congress.
I know I'm skipping around, but this document is an official FBI transcript of the cell phone calls made by Todd Beamer on 9/11/2001.
Flight 93 had supposedly crashed landed at 10:03:10 on 9/11/2001.
Can anyone explain to me how Todd Beamer made cell phone calls to a residence in New Jersey at the following times?
11:07
12:45
13:37
14:22
14:43
14:51
15:30
15:32
15:48
16:02
16:05
16:13
16:18
16:54
17:37
19:05
19:56
20:58
All of these calls lasted less than 1 minute, but were rounded up for billing purposes, as all/most cell phone companies do.
Is it safe to say that Todd Beamer was told to keep his cell phone conversations under 1 minute in order for them to not be traced?
I believe so. I'm hoping someone call tell me differently though, or explain how a man that supposed died at 10:03:10 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 made cell phone calls up to 8:58 PM the same day.
That is rather strange... I'd be willing to bet that his phone had a short or something that caused it to call that number in New Jersey. Either that or, you know, he is still alive and made over 10 calls one minute or less in length to a secret government contact in New Jersey for instructions on what he was to do next after being part of the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I know I'm skipping around, but this document is an official FBI transcript of the cell phone calls made by Todd Beamer on 9/11/2001.
Flight 93 had supposedly crashed landed at 10:03:10 on 9/11/2001.
Can anyone explain to me how Todd Beamer made cell phone calls to a residence in New Jersey at the following times?
11:07
12:45
13:37
14:22
14:43
14:51
15:30
15:32
15:48
16:02
16:05
16:13
16:18
16:54
17:37
19:05
19:56
20:58
All of these calls lasted less than 1 minute, but were rounded up for billing purposes, as all/most cell phone companies do.
Is it safe to say that Todd Beamer was told to keep his cell phone conversations under 1 minute in order for them to not be traced?
I believe so. I'm hoping someone call tell me differently though, or explain how a man that supposed died at 10:03:10 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 made cell phone calls up to 8:58 PM the same day.
That is rather strange... I'd be willing to bet that his phone had a short or something that caused it to call that number in New Jersey. Either that or, you know, he is still alive and made over 10 calls one minute or less in length to a secret government contact in New Jersey for instructions on what he was to do next after being part of the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
0
Todd Beamer cell phone log
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
That is rather strange... I'd be willing to bet that his phone had a short or something that caused it to call that number in New Jersey. Either that or, you know, he is still alive and made over 10 calls one minute or less in length to a secret government contact in New Jersey for instructions on what he was to do next after being part of the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Your official explanation is that it seems "strange", kaponofor?
Keep in mind that the entire life I learned to live ceased on the day of 9/11/2001. I understand that the day probably did not have as much of a profound affect on you as it did me (extreme apologies if it did, as I don't know you personally). But to laugh off an official FBI lead document and say "hmm that's strange, must have been a short" and then continue in the same sentence with sarcasm is highly HIGHLY disrespectful to me, and others that have lost loved ones on this day.
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it was just a short".
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
That is rather strange... I'd be willing to bet that his phone had a short or something that caused it to call that number in New Jersey. Either that or, you know, he is still alive and made over 10 calls one minute or less in length to a secret government contact in New Jersey for instructions on what he was to do next after being part of the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Your official explanation is that it seems "strange", kaponofor?
Keep in mind that the entire life I learned to live ceased on the day of 9/11/2001. I understand that the day probably did not have as much of a profound affect on you as it did me (extreme apologies if it did, as I don't know you personally). But to laugh off an official FBI lead document and say "hmm that's strange, must have been a short" and then continue in the same sentence with sarcasm is highly HIGHLY disrespectful to me, and others that have lost loved ones on this day.
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it was just a short".
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BLU-82:
Todd Beamer cell phone log
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
BLU, do you have your own opinion on the calls? Or do you simply copy and paste from other websites and claim to use the words as your own?
To counter your claims (even though they aren't yours), on the document I posted, it clearly shows an "incoming" call at 07:43. All of the other calls can therefore be determined to be outgoing, which they were according to Verizon wireless.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BLU-82:
Todd Beamer cell phone log
The document is confusing. At first
glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell
phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the
log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls
related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as
exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).
My
best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in
which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might
make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.
More
confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed
as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number
that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a
call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using
the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)
Even
if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's
difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that
Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission
cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.
BLU, do you have your own opinion on the calls? Or do you simply copy and paste from other websites and claim to use the words as your own?
To counter your claims (even though they aren't yours), on the document I posted, it clearly shows an "incoming" call at 07:43. All of the other calls can therefore be determined to be outgoing, which they were according to Verizon wireless.
SMIDDYO!!!!!!!!!!! your pointless paste wasted 40 seconds of my time. Not one mention of the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Post #1083 will live on forever as the dumbest thing ever said ever. Smiddyo thinks the library of congress is a congressional committee. HAHAHAHAHA puts a smile on my face every time I read it. Please smiddyo who heads this library of congress? Please Please Please answer or not I will keep bringing this to the attention of everybody anytime I get the chance. I have a friend at the post gazette I am thinking of calling and some girl who works for me is trying to get a hold of tosh.0 to try and ask you to enlighten us about how one goes about testifying in front of the library of congress.
Third paragraph down. Please read to me the 15th, 16th, and 17th words.
To answer your question (although I don't see how it's relevant whatsoever), the current Librarian of Congress is James H. Billington
0
Quote Originally Posted by tillyo:
SMIDDYO!!!!!!!!!!! your pointless paste wasted 40 seconds of my time. Not one mention of the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Post #1083 will live on forever as the dumbest thing ever said ever. Smiddyo thinks the library of congress is a congressional committee. HAHAHAHAHA puts a smile on my face every time I read it. Please smiddyo who heads this library of congress? Please Please Please answer or not I will keep bringing this to the attention of everybody anytime I get the chance. I have a friend at the post gazette I am thinking of calling and some girl who works for me is trying to get a hold of tosh.0 to try and ask you to enlighten us about how one goes about testifying in front of the library of congress.
Third paragraph down. Please read to me the 15th, 16th, and 17th words.
To answer your question (although I don't see how it's relevant whatsoever), the current Librarian of Congress is James H. Billington
And if you believe that it was not post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight
then all the work by thousands of conspirators under threat of death to keep mouths shut, and the FBI messes up big time
0
The 9/11 Commission made no comment.
And if you believe that it was not post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight
then all the work by thousands of conspirators under threat of death to keep mouths shut, and the FBI messes up big time
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit
against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it
was just a short".
someone is going to lose a heap of money citing that document, that's for sure
0
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit
against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it
was just a short".
someone is going to lose a heap of money citing that document, that's for sure
Your official explanation is that it seems "strange", kaponofor?
Keep in mind that the entire life I learned to live ceased on the day of 9/11/2001. I understand that the day probably did not have as much of a profound affect on you as it did me (extreme apologies if it did, as I don't know you personally). But to laugh off an official FBI lead document and say "hmm that's strange, must have been a short" and then continue in the same sentence with sarcasm is highly HIGHLY disrespectful to me, and others that have lost loved ones on this day.
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it was just a short".
My official explanation is that this likely was a short or malfunction in the phone.
The only other possible explanation is the one I put in my response, which (while sarcastic) is nonetheless the only other alternative. I'll take Occam's Razor every day of the week.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Your official explanation is that it seems "strange", kaponofor?
Keep in mind that the entire life I learned to live ceased on the day of 9/11/2001. I understand that the day probably did not have as much of a profound affect on you as it did me (extreme apologies if it did, as I don't know you personally). But to laugh off an official FBI lead document and say "hmm that's strange, must have been a short" and then continue in the same sentence with sarcasm is highly HIGHLY disrespectful to me, and others that have lost loved ones on this day.
The above document, as well as others, is being used in a lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let's see if a jury thinks "it was just a short".
My official explanation is that this likely was a short or malfunction in the phone.
The only other possible explanation is the one I put in my response, which (while sarcastic) is nonetheless the only other alternative. I'll take Occam's Razor every day of the week.
And if you believe that it was not post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight
then all the work by thousands of conspirators under threat of death to keep mouths shut, and the FBI messes up big time
They didn't mess up at all. They are required to maintain a paper trail, regardless of the cover up. A paper trail of this magnitude takes years and years to finally uncover. I'm sure you heard of the recent wikileaks exposure of text messages regarding 9/11. These things all come out in time. The FBI lead document that you have read is being used in a class action lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. You haven't heard about the case publicly yet but trust me, you will
And if I'm not mistaken, you are still using the argument that "nah they couldn't have made that big of a mistake" to justify the 18 phone calls made FROM Todd Beamer's cell phone after his body had been torched due to the alleged plane crash?
They were not pings. They were outgoing calls, as verified by Verizon Wireless. Don't make things up BLU
0
Quote Originally Posted by BLU-82:
The 9/11 Commission made no comment.
And if you believe that it was not post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone
company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage,
or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to
ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight
then all the work by thousands of conspirators under threat of death to keep mouths shut, and the FBI messes up big time
They didn't mess up at all. They are required to maintain a paper trail, regardless of the cover up. A paper trail of this magnitude takes years and years to finally uncover. I'm sure you heard of the recent wikileaks exposure of text messages regarding 9/11. These things all come out in time. The FBI lead document that you have read is being used in a class action lawsuit against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. You haven't heard about the case publicly yet but trust me, you will
And if I'm not mistaken, you are still using the argument that "nah they couldn't have made that big of a mistake" to justify the 18 phone calls made FROM Todd Beamer's cell phone after his body had been torched due to the alleged plane crash?
They were not pings. They were outgoing calls, as verified by Verizon Wireless. Don't make things up BLU
Awww yes, when I finally prove to you both (and most likely others) that there are far too many questions and not enough answers, you grasp at straws and still dismiss the evidence that is right in front of your face.
Neither you, kaponofor, nor BLU care about the truth. Just admit it, and I'll move on to others that want answers, just like I do
0
Awww yes, when I finally prove to you both (and most likely others) that there are far too many questions and not enough answers, you grasp at straws and still dismiss the evidence that is right in front of your face.
Neither you, kaponofor, nor BLU care about the truth. Just admit it, and I'll move on to others that want answers, just like I do
Kaponofor, by the way, you still have not answered me question regarding the NoC approach that 2+ dozens eye witnesses of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001 confirmed.
To state my question again:
Do you believe Flight 77 took a Northern approach to the Pentagon on 9/11?
If your answer is yes, which I'm more than certain it has to be, then how can you possibly explain the resulting damage to the building resulting in the alleged crash, as well as the 5 downed light poles?
0
Kaponofor, by the way, you still have not answered me question regarding the NoC approach that 2+ dozens eye witnesses of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001 confirmed.
To state my question again:
Do you believe Flight 77 took a Northern approach to the Pentagon on 9/11?
If your answer is yes, which I'm more than certain it has to be, then how can you possibly explain the resulting damage to the building resulting in the alleged crash, as well as the 5 downed light poles?
Awww yes, when I finally prove to you both (and most likely others) that there are far too many questions and not enough answers, you grasp at straws and still dismiss the evidence that is right in front of your face.
Neither you, kaponofor, nor BLU care about the truth. Just admit it, and I'll move on to others that want answers, just like I do
I care about the truth, smdio. I just think I have a tad bit more objectivity than you. The mere fact that there are a lot of questions and perhaps not enough answers to satisfy you is not evidence of a conspiracy. What bothers me is that someone who claims to be seeking out the truth is unwilling to examine arguments and evidence that go against a conspiracy -- isn't that failure to evaluate all evidence the exact same thing you rail against me or others who do not believe in a conspiracy for?
Care to tell us more about this class action lawsuit? Can't wait to hear about this. I wonder how they will get past the statute of limitations
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Awww yes, when I finally prove to you both (and most likely others) that there are far too many questions and not enough answers, you grasp at straws and still dismiss the evidence that is right in front of your face.
Neither you, kaponofor, nor BLU care about the truth. Just admit it, and I'll move on to others that want answers, just like I do
I care about the truth, smdio. I just think I have a tad bit more objectivity than you. The mere fact that there are a lot of questions and perhaps not enough answers to satisfy you is not evidence of a conspiracy. What bothers me is that someone who claims to be seeking out the truth is unwilling to examine arguments and evidence that go against a conspiracy -- isn't that failure to evaluate all evidence the exact same thing you rail against me or others who do not believe in a conspiracy for?
Care to tell us more about this class action lawsuit? Can't wait to hear about this. I wonder how they will get past the statute of limitations
Kaponofor, by the way, you still have not answered me question regarding the NoC approach that 2+ dozens eye witnesses of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001 confirmed.
To state my question again:
Do you believe Flight 77 took a Northern approach to the Pentagon on 9/11?
If your answer is yes, which I'm more than certain it has to be, then how can you possibly explain the resulting damage to the building resulting in the alleged crash, as well as the 5 downed light poles?
I have not addressed this because I have not had adequate time to research it or look into it. I promise you at some point I will, just not at this very moment (have to finish up with some stuff before leaving the office)
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Kaponofor, by the way, you still have not answered me question regarding the NoC approach that 2+ dozens eye witnesses of Flight 77 on 9/11/2001 confirmed.
To state my question again:
Do you believe Flight 77 took a Northern approach to the Pentagon on 9/11?
If your answer is yes, which I'm more than certain it has to be, then how can you possibly explain the resulting damage to the building resulting in the alleged crash, as well as the 5 downed light poles?
I have not addressed this because I have not had adequate time to research it or look into it. I promise you at some point I will, just not at this very moment (have to finish up with some stuff before leaving the office)
It's also not a lawsuit about 9/11 specifically, as you're 100% right, that wouldn't work out too well.
It's a lawsuit on Obstruction of Justice and Treason. And believe me, you'll be hearing about it very soon.
I'll probably be hearing about it being dismissed pretty soon, smdio. Obstruction of Justice and Treason are criminal charges, not civil charges. I dunno what dime store lawyer you are talking to, but you can't have a class action lawsuit based on criminal charges. Class actions are civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
It's also not a lawsuit about 9/11 specifically, as you're 100% right, that wouldn't work out too well.
It's a lawsuit on Obstruction of Justice and Treason. And believe me, you'll be hearing about it very soon.
I'll probably be hearing about it being dismissed pretty soon, smdio. Obstruction of Justice and Treason are criminal charges, not civil charges. I dunno what dime store lawyer you are talking to, but you can't have a class action lawsuit based on criminal charges. Class actions are civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.
There is no statute of limitations for Treason, and the Obstruction charges have been filed many, many years ago.
And I take offense to the first part of that statement. If anyone has weighed all of the evidence, it's me. I was silent for nearly 3 years, trying to convince myself that what I'm digging up simply cannot be true. When the bad outweighed the good, I had no choice but to proceed with litigation, and to spread the word on as many internet forums as possible, as well as inform every possible person that I come across with this information.
I'd be more than happy to answer any and every single question or debunking theory that you may have to contradicts my points of view. You simply haven't asked me anything that I didn't answer successfully, although I believe you're claiming to have
0
There is no statute of limitations for Treason, and the Obstruction charges have been filed many, many years ago.
And I take offense to the first part of that statement. If anyone has weighed all of the evidence, it's me. I was silent for nearly 3 years, trying to convince myself that what I'm digging up simply cannot be true. When the bad outweighed the good, I had no choice but to proceed with litigation, and to spread the word on as many internet forums as possible, as well as inform every possible person that I come across with this information.
I'd be more than happy to answer any and every single question or debunking theory that you may have to contradicts my points of view. You simply haven't asked me anything that I didn't answer successfully, although I believe you're claiming to have
I'll probably be hearing about it being dismissed pretty soon, smdio. Obstruction of Justice and Treason are criminal charges, not civil charges. I dunno what dime store lawyer you are talking to, but you can't have a class action lawsuit based on criminal charges. Class actions are civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.
I shouldn't have used the word "class action" as now that I looked it up, it's totally incorrect in the context that I used it in. But there is way more than just 1 person who has filed the lawsuit with me, and we are all represented by the same team. That's the point I was trying to make. Please excuse me, as I'm hyped up on vicodin and other drugs that are making me type and post way quicker than normal
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I'll probably be hearing about it being dismissed pretty soon, smdio. Obstruction of Justice and Treason are criminal charges, not civil charges. I dunno what dime store lawyer you are talking to, but you can't have a class action lawsuit based on criminal charges. Class actions are civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.
I shouldn't have used the word "class action" as now that I looked it up, it's totally incorrect in the context that I used it in. But there is way more than just 1 person who has filed the lawsuit with me, and we are all represented by the same team. That's the point I was trying to make. Please excuse me, as I'm hyped up on vicodin and other drugs that are making me type and post way quicker than normal
There is no statute of limitations for Treason, and the Obstruction charges have been filed many, many years ago.
And I take offense to the first part of that statement. If anyone has weighed all of the evidence, it's me. I was silent for nearly 3 years, trying to convince myself that what I'm digging up simply cannot be true. When the bad outweighed the good, I had no choice but to proceed with litigation, and to spread the word on as many internet forums as possible, as well as inform every possible person that I come across with this information.
I'd be more than happy to answer any and every single question or debunking theory that you may have to contradicts my points of view. You simply haven't asked me anything that I didn't answer successfully, although I believe you're claiming to have
smdio, you can't have a class action suit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason. I'm sorry. It's not legally valid. Whoever is telling you that you can have a class action lawsuit is just taking your money. I'm telling you that because I don't like to see people get taken advantage of.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
There is no statute of limitations for Treason, and the Obstruction charges have been filed many, many years ago.
And I take offense to the first part of that statement. If anyone has weighed all of the evidence, it's me. I was silent for nearly 3 years, trying to convince myself that what I'm digging up simply cannot be true. When the bad outweighed the good, I had no choice but to proceed with litigation, and to spread the word on as many internet forums as possible, as well as inform every possible person that I come across with this information.
I'd be more than happy to answer any and every single question or debunking theory that you may have to contradicts my points of view. You simply haven't asked me anything that I didn't answer successfully, although I believe you're claiming to have
smdio, you can't have a class action suit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason. I'm sorry. It's not legally valid. Whoever is telling you that you can have a class action lawsuit is just taking your money. I'm telling you that because I don't like to see people get taken advantage of.
I shouldn't have used the word "class action" as now that I looked it up, it's totally incorrect in the context that I used it in. But there is way more than just 1 person who has filed the lawsuit with me, and we are all represented by the same team. That's the point I was trying to make. Please excuse me, as I'm hyped up on vicodin and other drugs that are making me type and post way quicker than normal
Either way smdio, I don't think you get what I am saying. A private litigant cannot bring a civil lawsuit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason. A private litigant cannot even bring a criminal lawsuit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason -- only a District Attorney or Attorney General could.
Whoever is telling you different is just playing on your emotions and taking your money while lying to you. That's the God's honest truth, smdio. We may disagree about 9/11 conspiracy stuff, but I don't want to see someone get taken advantage of.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I shouldn't have used the word "class action" as now that I looked it up, it's totally incorrect in the context that I used it in. But there is way more than just 1 person who has filed the lawsuit with me, and we are all represented by the same team. That's the point I was trying to make. Please excuse me, as I'm hyped up on vicodin and other drugs that are making me type and post way quicker than normal
Either way smdio, I don't think you get what I am saying. A private litigant cannot bring a civil lawsuit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason. A private litigant cannot even bring a criminal lawsuit for Obstruction of Justice and Treason -- only a District Attorney or Attorney General could.
Whoever is telling you different is just playing on your emotions and taking your money while lying to you. That's the God's honest truth, smdio. We may disagree about 9/11 conspiracy stuff, but I don't want to see someone get taken advantage of.
Hot Forum Topics
