Greetings Compus,
and thank you for your detailed post to which I will now reply. I give you credit for posting up strongly. You have certainly led your post with one of the strongest emotional appeals there is.
In doing so, you are using Christine Hanson to prove a point. Unfortunately, the point you are seeking to prove is that of support for the common storyline of 9/11.
Now hear this Compus.
You are not going to run that past me. Instead, you are here and now going to be challenged for posting up an emotional appeal, designed to curry favor based on an emotional appeal that is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to convert the illusion of the common storyline of 9/11 into a reality based on emotion.
That tactic is a transparent example of using 9/11s victims for your own ends.
I don't think you should do that in the manner you have done as you are using poor victims, in this instance an infant, no less, for your own ends.
That is a hallmark of 9/11 though. But that is not a surprise. 9/11 was and remains a PSYOP.
Let's get right to it, shall we:
The CNN website that you placed your reliance on is here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/10/moussaoui.victims/index.html
An actual quote from the CNN article shows just how emotionally driven the trial proceedings were allowed to be:
"Lee Hanson, 73, described how he watched on television as his son, Peter, 32, daughter-in-law, Sue Kim, 35, and granddaughter, Christine, perished aboard United Airlines Flight 175 as it slammed into the trade center's south tower."
Right there we see how illusion works. A witness was allowed to testify as to what he saw on teevee and to actually testify in a way that presupposed what he saw on teevee was Flight 175.
Despite Myriad's dispute that I have accurately and correctly dealt with the issue of assumption, as it relates to reasoning, it is still fundamentally correct that:
One cannot assume what has not been proven
Lee Hanson was allowed to do just that.
That is why I say that Moussaoui only had a show trial.
You next say:
Would you mind providing the source of the above claim, Compus? The CNN article you linked does not make that claim as nearly as I can tell, unless I missed it. All the CNN article says about DNA is completely inconclusive and does not refer to DNA identification at all. The article says:
"He described how he later went to his son's house to collect toothbrushes and picked hair off brushes so medical examiners could obtain DNA samples to identify remains."
I here reiterate that there is no known verifiable, authenticated DNA identification of airline passengers for flights 11, 175 or 93. I also don't think there is DNA identification for flight 77, either. However, the Pentagon is a controlled site, so goodness knows the extent of deception that could have been done there.
I here challenge posters to post up proof of their DNA of passengers claims, if they have any.
Most of your post, Compus, centers on Moussaoui trial proceedings and exhibits, right?
Let's examine this by way of analogy.
Looking ahead, do posters here think the victims of the BP Oil spill are going to be allowed to give testimony like that of Lee Hanson at a trial of, say, Tony Hayward, CEO of BP?
I'll answer for you: Not in a million years.
The reason for that is that in a real trial, no competent defense counsel would allow testimony based on assumption of the type that Lee Hanson got away with. Because that sort of testimony was allowed in the Moussaoui trial, he, Moussaoui, should be freed soon once it becomes more widely known just how stupidly he was represented.
Of course, Hayward will have competent counsel who will probably run rings around the prosecution, instead of the other way about.
I can guarantee this much: Tony Hayward, unlike Zacharias Moussaoui, is not going to enter into a stipulation admitting every last detail of the BP oil spill in the same way that Moussaoui entered into a stipulation admitting every last detail of the common storyline of 9/11, to and including where alleged passengers were seated on the alleged planes; not on the basis of passenger manifests, but rather, on the basis of stupid drawings and charts, no less!
Hey posters, do you realize that if you enter into a stipulation admitting facts, it is supposed to mean you have a basis for knowing the facts, as alleged, are true.
Is there anyone here, anyone at all who thinks Zacharias Moussaoui had a basis for knowing where passengers were sitting on alleged 9/11 flights?
Compus, your post does not pass muster and does not prove a darn thing, other, perhaps, than that the Moussaoui trial was a total and complete farce.
There is no way on earth a chart like the above should have been used as evidence. That is not an authenticated passenger manifest. Chances are, it was only allowed in as an illustrative chart, not as proof of passengers. Yet, it was also known that people do not really require much in the way of proof of the common storyline of 9/11. We have already seen how people latch onto the Moussaoui trial exhibits, notwithstanding they came in by way of a stipulation signed by Moussaoui, for dear life.
They do so because that is one of the few sources of proof of the common storyline of 9/11 to which a fig leaf of authenticity can be attached. The extent of that fig leaf is this:
The fact that Moussaoui signed a stipulation allowing that BS to be considered evidence.
Once again, posters, lurkers and family members of victims, the absolute absurdity of the common storyline of 9/11 and of the way that storyline has not ever been investigated or proven is right here in front of you.
Grasp it.
Your emotional appeal, quoted above, is transparent, obvious and weak.
Hey Myriad, where are you when we need you?
You started out presenting an appeal based solely upon emotion in a blatant use of someone who is missing and presumed dead. You didn't present any facts.
You then tried to overstate the meaning and the signficance of the stupid Moussaoui trial by relying on that same emotional tactic, using, in the second instance, the opposite end of the age spectrum -- the grandparent.
You made a DNA claim that you did not even source.
Did you do that on purpose?
Is it your claim the Moussaoui exhibits contain DNA evidence; if so, will you kindly source the claim?
Your use of facts is transparent alright. The fact is, you have not relied on any official investigation of 9/11 because there was none. You have not shown any evidence of what happened that extends beyond a stipulation signed by a patsy and presented in a show trial that ran roughshod over the norms of legal process and presented a farce.
I do not expect you to understand what you have done. I expect you to continue to rely as much as you possibly can on the Moussaoui trial exhibits because that is about all you have.
I have, however, shown that those exhibits and that trial relied on standards that completely debase legal process and that present next to nothing that is in the way of proof of what happened on 9/11. Your attempt to use it for that purpose is a complete and utter failure in terms of proof.
and thank you for your detailed post to which I will now reply. I give you credit for posting up strongly. You have certainly led your post with one of the strongest emotional appeals there is.
In doing so, you are using Christine Hanson to prove a point. Unfortunately, the point you are seeking to prove is that of support for the common storyline of 9/11.
Now hear this Compus.
You are not going to run that past me. Instead, you are here and now going to be challenged for posting up an emotional appeal, designed to curry favor based on an emotional appeal that is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to convert the illusion of the common storyline of 9/11 into a reality based on emotion.
That tactic is a transparent example of using 9/11s victims for your own ends.
I don't think you should do that in the manner you have done as you are using poor victims, in this instance an infant, no less, for your own ends.
That is a hallmark of 9/11 though. But that is not a surprise. 9/11 was and remains a PSYOP.
Let's get right to it, shall we:
The CNN website that you placed your reliance on is here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/10/moussaoui.victims/index.html
An actual quote from the CNN article shows just how emotionally driven the trial proceedings were allowed to be:
"Lee Hanson, 73, described how he watched on television as his son, Peter, 32, daughter-in-law, Sue Kim, 35, and granddaughter, Christine, perished aboard United Airlines Flight 175 as it slammed into the trade center's south tower."
Right there we see how illusion works. A witness was allowed to testify as to what he saw on teevee and to actually testify in a way that presupposed what he saw on teevee was Flight 175.
Despite Myriad's dispute that I have accurately and correctly dealt with the issue of assumption, as it relates to reasoning, it is still fundamentally correct that:
One cannot assume what has not been proven
Lee Hanson was allowed to do just that.
That is why I say that Moussaoui only had a show trial.
You next say:
Would you mind providing the source of the above claim, Compus? The CNN article you linked does not make that claim as nearly as I can tell, unless I missed it. All the CNN article says about DNA is completely inconclusive and does not refer to DNA identification at all. The article says:
"He described how he later went to his son's house to collect toothbrushes and picked hair off brushes so medical examiners could obtain DNA samples to identify remains."
I here reiterate that there is no known verifiable, authenticated DNA identification of airline passengers for flights 11, 175 or 93. I also don't think there is DNA identification for flight 77, either. However, the Pentagon is a controlled site, so goodness knows the extent of deception that could have been done there.
I here challenge posters to post up proof of their DNA of passengers claims, if they have any.
Most of your post, Compus, centers on Moussaoui trial proceedings and exhibits, right?
Let's examine this by way of analogy.
Looking ahead, do posters here think the victims of the BP Oil spill are going to be allowed to give testimony like that of Lee Hanson at a trial of, say, Tony Hayward, CEO of BP?
I'll answer for you: Not in a million years.
The reason for that is that in a real trial, no competent defense counsel would allow testimony based on assumption of the type that Lee Hanson got away with. Because that sort of testimony was allowed in the Moussaoui trial, he, Moussaoui, should be freed soon once it becomes more widely known just how stupidly he was represented.
Of course, Hayward will have competent counsel who will probably run rings around the prosecution, instead of the other way about.
I can guarantee this much: Tony Hayward, unlike Zacharias Moussaoui, is not going to enter into a stipulation admitting every last detail of the BP oil spill in the same way that Moussaoui entered into a stipulation admitting every last detail of the common storyline of 9/11, to and including where alleged passengers were seated on the alleged planes; not on the basis of passenger manifests, but rather, on the basis of stupid drawings and charts, no less!
Hey posters, do you realize that if you enter into a stipulation admitting facts, it is supposed to mean you have a basis for knowing the facts, as alleged, are true.
Is there anyone here, anyone at all who thinks Zacharias Moussaoui had a basis for knowing where passengers were sitting on alleged 9/11 flights?
Compus, your post does not pass muster and does not prove a darn thing, other, perhaps, than that the Moussaoui trial was a total and complete farce.
There is no way on earth a chart like the above should have been used as evidence. That is not an authenticated passenger manifest. Chances are, it was only allowed in as an illustrative chart, not as proof of passengers. Yet, it was also known that people do not really require much in the way of proof of the common storyline of 9/11. We have already seen how people latch onto the Moussaoui trial exhibits, notwithstanding they came in by way of a stipulation signed by Moussaoui, for dear life.
They do so because that is one of the few sources of proof of the common storyline of 9/11 to which a fig leaf of authenticity can be attached. The extent of that fig leaf is this:
The fact that Moussaoui signed a stipulation allowing that BS to be considered evidence.
Once again, posters, lurkers and family members of victims, the absolute absurdity of the common storyline of 9/11 and of the way that storyline has not ever been investigated or proven is right here in front of you.
Grasp it.
Your emotional appeal, quoted above, is transparent, obvious and weak.
Hey Myriad, where are you when we need you?
You started out presenting an appeal based solely upon emotion in a blatant use of someone who is missing and presumed dead. You didn't present any facts.
You then tried to overstate the meaning and the signficance of the stupid Moussaoui trial by relying on that same emotional tactic, using, in the second instance, the opposite end of the age spectrum -- the grandparent.
You made a DNA claim that you did not even source.
Did you do that on purpose?
Is it your claim the Moussaoui exhibits contain DNA evidence; if so, will you kindly source the claim?
Your use of facts is transparent alright. The fact is, you have not relied on any official investigation of 9/11 because there was none. You have not shown any evidence of what happened that extends beyond a stipulation signed by a patsy and presented in a show trial that ran roughshod over the norms of legal process and presented a farce.
I do not expect you to understand what you have done. I expect you to continue to rely as much as you possibly can on the Moussaoui trial exhibits because that is about all you have.
I have, however, shown that those exhibits and that trial relied on standards that completely debase legal process and that present next to nothing that is in the way of proof of what happened on 9/11. Your attempt to use it for that purpose is a complete and utter failure in terms of proof.
