LCFC - Coming soon to a cinema near you...

T.A.M. said:
yes...so for Russ, where are the Actual Explosives used in the alleged Controlled Demolitions of the towers.

TAM
Click to expand...

Examination of the steel with explosives in mind might find explosive residues.

Ooops I forgot, the steel has gone.
 
I might have to start a new thread with my post #373 so that it doesn't get lost in the wilderness, so to speak, and so that it doesn't get buried by CTers who might choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

I can't imagine why any CTer wouldn't want to take me up on the offer, but, you know, just in case they all miss it or all ignore it, perhaps I will have to start a new thread to make it more obvious.

I am willing and able to do everything that I said in that post; I will gladly take Russell's evidence and personally interview every single witness that he alludes to, and will provide all of the details, all of the evidence, and transcripts of all of the interviews verbatim to a D.A. as set out above.

However, I have to go out of town tomorrow and once I sign out tonight, I won't be able to get back to JREF until Thursday evening at earliest and I'd hate to see this buried... so if I don't see any response in the next hour or two before I have to hit the sheets, I'll start a new thread in order to locate it more readily later.
 
LashL said:
I might have to start a new thread with my post #373 so that it doesn't get lost in the wilderness, so to speak, and so that it doesn't get buried by CTers who might choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

I can't imagine why any CTer wouldn't want to take me up on the offer, but, you know, just in case they all miss it or all ignore it, perhaps I will have to start a new thread to make it more obvious.

I am willing and able to do everything that I said in that post; I will gladly take Russell's evidence and personally interview every single witness that he alludes to, and will provide all of the details, all of the evidence, and transcripts of all of the interviews verbatim to a D.A. as set out above.

However, I have to go out of town tomorrow and once I sign out tonight, I won't be able to get back to JREF until Thursday evening at earliest and I'd hate to see this buried... so if I don't see any response in the next hour or two before I have to hit the sheets, I'll start a new thread in order to locate it more readily later.
Click to expand...

I think Angelina Jolie was the one who planted the explosives. Now do your duty. :)
 
CptColumbo said:
I think Angelina Jolie was the one who planted the explosives. Now do your duty. :)
Click to expand...

I happen to know that she has a perfect alibi for the dates in question.

Er, don't ask me how I know. :p
 
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's about all there is to say about that. Wow.

Wow.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Yes research. The groovy gravy grave paper is cut and paste sounbites. Killtown has done original research on the serenity photo.
Click to expand...

Unfortunetely for KT, his research was flawed and so were his conclusions. Perhaps he would have been better off citing sources and professionals that know what they are talking about.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I don't have to provide a new suspect.
Click to expand...
apathoid said:
You see, this is the very problem. Thats all you guys want do is point out anomolies and absense of evidence(or too much evidence, or faked evidence, etc, etc..). Can't be bothered to do any more....?

How about you people get your act together, come up with a coherent alterate theory that:
-reconciles all of your anomolies
-does not contain mutually exclusive sub-theories
-produces new suspects
-is supported by academia(y'know - peer review)
-is backed by testimony of real, actual whistleblowers(like those invisibombers)
... and let us poke holes in it for a change. Seriously, its been 5 years and there are ZERO alternate theories, why is that do you suppose? Could it be that the best one doesnt pass the laugh test?
Click to expand...
I'll take a guess as to why CTers don't do what you suggest:

Their very premise -- an inside job -- is 100% wrong.
 
LashL said:
Here's a better idea, Russell.

Take your evidence to a D.A. instead of just posting vague non-evidence ad infinitum on internet forums.

If you cannot or will not do so, here's an alternative proposition. 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 if you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

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 be 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?
Click to expand...
Brilliant. Let's do this. I'm pumped.

Let the truthing begin.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Wow. That's about all there is to say about that. Wow.

Wow.
Click to expand...

Further to everything I wrote in #373, the offer of which still stands, I just realized that the original post by Russell actually calls for the DA to prove to him that explosives were not used.

So, I will have to preface my prior post with the following sentence:

Despite the fact that the DA is not mandated with the task of proving what did not happen, but is instead mandated with proving what did happen, I am perfectly willing to take your evidence to a DA since you seem to be unable or unwilling to do so.

And to reiterate the lengths to which I am willing to go to test your evidence, here is the rest of my post. Please take me up on my offer.

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 if you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

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 be 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?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom