• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked

Galileo said:
The defense can present expert witness Dr. Jeffrey Farrer to testify about the nano-thermite found at ground zero. That's all you usually need to convince a jury is one good expert witness. Juries almost always believe what scientists tell them. The prosecution has no scientist to counter Dr. Farrer, because every scientist who has tested for thermite in the WTC dust has found it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but yet we could parade 15-???? other scientists who will prove otherwise. You've got 2 at most.
 
Galileo said:
The defense can present expert witness Dr. Jeffrey Farrer to testify about the nano-thermite found at ground zero. That's all you usually need to convince a jury is one good expert witness. Juries almost always believe what scientists tell them. The prosecution has no scientist to counter Dr. Farrer, because every scientist who has tested for thermite in the WTC dust has found it.
Click to expand...

Referring to the Bentham paper: Harrit, Ferrar, et al.

Perhaps you could ask Jeffrey why it is that they did NOT perform the standard X-ray diffraction tests that can be done to detect and distinguish all the various compounds (Iron-oxide, aluminum, aluminum oxide and iron).

You know, the standard test that would have given you a DEFINITIVE answer as to "whether or not there was thermite there". I checked and you can get these tests done for about $175 each.

Instead, you spent (Months?) to come up with a NON-definitive piece o' junk paper. That reinvents a triangular wheel. That has NO conclusions, just "suggestions".

And that, as a result, could only be published in a 3rd rate publication like "Bentham Open Source".

Please get back to us with his explanation.


Tom
 
Galileo said:
The defense can present expert witness Dr. Jeffrey Farrer to testify about the nano-thermite found at ground zero. That's all you usually need to convince a jury is one good expert witness. Juries almost always believe what scientists tell them.
Click to expand...

How do you think Farrer could pass the Daubert test? The court would never allow his testimony, its junk science.

The prosecution has no scientist to counter Dr. Farrer, because every scientist who has tested for thermite in the WTC dust has found it.
Click to expand...

Which scientist, specifically, not affiliated with Farrer or the truth movement has duplicated the test?
 
Can Dr. J. Farrer explain why KSM gave money to Atta and his friends and choose them to kill 3000 innocent peoples?

Ho right...It was just a diversion! To hide the CD of WTC7...

BTW, it wasn't nano-thermite.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
You are right. I associated him with theology because of his university connection to BYU and his status as a self proclaimed Mormon.
Click to expand...

In defense of BYU and the church, 3 engineering professors at BYU publicly disputed Jones's "research". The three engineering profs kept their jobs at BYU while Jones got his walking papers.
 
Wow...it's like listening to the blind leading the blind...I can't even tell what point you're trying to make. Funny though...thanks for the entertainment.

I guess they aren't taking calls.

eta:

Listened to the whole thing while I cooked my dinner...so it wasn't a total loss...the fried chicken came out really good. Wow, Rolf..you were all over the place...It was really difficult to follow what point you were trying to make. Next time, you might want to pre-prepare some comments that don't sound like that they were completely pulled out of your backside. :)
 
Last edited:
Oh I so can't wait for the farce that will be the peanut gallery around this trial. A sin for those who lost loved ones around it, but boy is it gonna make the truthers look like the obnoxious ass wipes they truly are

TAM:)
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Wow...it's like listening to the blind leading the blind...I can't even tell what point you're trying to make. Funny though...thanks for the entertainment.

I guess they aren't taking calls.

eta:

Listened to the whole thing while I cooked my dinner...so it wasn't a total loss...the fried chicken came out really good. Wow, Rolf..you were all over the place...It was really difficult to follow what point you were trying to make. Next time, you might want to pre-prepare some comments that don't sound like that they were completely pulled out of your backside. :)
Click to expand...

I was trying to explain why the charges are weak, even assuming the 19 alleged hijackers were really the hijackers. But of course Barrett can never do this without wasting time telling us the 19 alleged hijackers weren't really the hijackers, event though his entire audience already agrees with that and knows a lot about 9/11, but little about federal conspiracy trials.
 
T.A.M. said:
Oh I so can't wait for the farce that will be the peanut gallery around this trial. A sin for those who lost loved ones around it, but boy is it gonna make the truthers look like the obnoxious ass wipes they truly are

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Do you think Kahtani is guilty?

:confused:
 
Galileo said:
I was trying to explain why the charges are weak, even assuming the 19 alleged hijackers were really the hijackers. But of course Barrett can never do this without wasting time telling us the 19 alleged hijackers weren't really the hijackers, event though his entire audience already agrees with that and knows a lot about 9/11, but little about federal conspiracy trials.
Click to expand...

Did I miss the federal indictment? Or are you still making assumptions based on the military tribunal indictment?
 
Galileo said:
err, the military charge sheet is an accusation.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant, the military charge sheet is not a federal indictment.

Since the indictment has not been handed down, you are guessing at what the charges MAY be and how they will be presented. Since the rules of evidence, trier of fact and standard of guilt is not the same, any analysis you do based on the military charge sheet is a misrepresentation to an uneducated audience.

But what the hell, it makes good bumpersticker quotes.
 
Trojan said:
It's irrelevant, the military charge sheet is not a federal indictment.

Since the indictment has not been handed down, you are guessing at what the charges MAY be and how they will be presented. Since the rules of evidence, trier of fact and standard of guilt is not the same, any analysis you do based on the military charge sheet is a misrepresentation to an uneducated audience.

But what the hell, it makes good bumpersticker quotes.
Click to expand...

So are they going to change the facts again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom