Mojo
Mostly harmless
indeed, you didn't even have sufficient curiosity to read a court judgment before pontificating on what it was about.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Roger Waters promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories...
- Thread starter Allen773
- Start date
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I did read it actually.
Do you agree the case is a ridiculous waste of time, or not? In other words, do you think 9/11 was a terror attack by 19 Al Quaeda terrorists flying hijacked planes into buildings and the ground in Shanksville, or something else? Put up or shut up. Piss (on the graves) or get off the pot.
ETA: And a phobia is a fear. I'm not afraid of 9/11 conspiracists, I'm disgusted by them. Big difference. I'll thank you to not make that mistake again.
Last edited:
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
[Doris Day bellows a song into a child's face because reasons]
[Doris Day bellows a song into a child's face because Hitchcock wanted to remake the movie, but had not the faintest idea how to direct a singer.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
We're just a few posters writing in a long thread, year after year.
Running over the same old ground, but have we found, the same old fears?
Wish I weren't here.
Running over the same old ground, but have we found, the same old fears?
Wish I weren't here.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Then why did you think it was about whether the AG decides the cause of the WTC buildings collapsing, rather that the actual issue of whether the AG's decision on the reopening of an inquest is justiciable?
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Please behave yourself. I was addressing smock's misapprehension that the Attorney General would have any remit as to determine what caused the WTC collapse. Please in future link back to what is being replied to instead of going off on a diversion. As if I thought former AG Victoria Prentis was capable of doing any such thing! As I explained, the Supreme Court deals with matters impinging on public interest and constitutional areas. It is astonishingly rare for anyone to be granted a Supreme Court hearing so please stop trying to brush off a two-day Supreme Court hearing in front of a panel of seven top judges as a a trivial 'pissing on a grave' matter. Please quit the trite dull clichés and concentrate on the factual information.
Some legal bods have decided Campbell's application fulfills the criteria of whether a politically appointed AG can just brush off such an application. That is what the Supreme Court is for. It has decided this is a grey area that needs reviewing.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You can say it's a waste of time. That is not how law works. If I told you your POTUS disgusts me, does that mean no-one is allowed to discuss the creep because hey, I dictate what people are allowed to discuss and I am the thought police that tells you what you are allowed to think.
I never said you couldn't discuss anything you wish, so stop your oft seen pattern of putting words in someone's mouth. Again . . . you aren't the victim here! I said what you are intimating is disgusting, and pisses on the graves of the actual victims. You can discuss/intimate it all you wish, and I can call you disgusting for doing it. See how that works, sweety?
And I didn't ask if the court sees it as a waste of time, I asked if YOU agree it is a waste of time? Stop trying to be slippery and answer the question. You really aren't clever enough for the word games you think you are playing.
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Vixen, who should have been cross-examined at the 2013 inquest?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Vixen, what questions do you believe are still unanswered about the September 11 attacks?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's the same mentality that leads to attempts at roadside lawyering during a traffic stop:
You're not allowed to arrest me until you've explained the charges to my satisfaction and I agree that they're legitimate and I consent to be arrested, and that can't happen until my lawyer gets here, checkmate, officer.
Same thing here:
You're not allowed to have closure on 9/11 until every conspiracy theorist has had their say, has been given a fair hearing, and has been convinced by the evidence that there was no conspiracy. We owe it to the world to take Roger Waters' concerns seriously, until we've convinced him to change his mind. Checkmate, guv'n'r >sfx< [touches forelock] bows'n and a-scrapin' is wut we do, donchano kemo sabe?
You're not allowed to arrest me until you've explained the charges to my satisfaction and I agree that they're legitimate and I consent to be arrested, and that can't happen until my lawyer gets here, checkmate, officer.
Same thing here:
You're not allowed to have closure on 9/11 until every conspiracy theorist has had their say, has been given a fair hearing, and has been convinced by the evidence that there was no conspiracy. We owe it to the world to take Roger Waters' concerns seriously, until we've convinced him to change his mind. Checkmate, guv'n'r >sfx< [touches forelock] bows'n and a-scrapin' is wut we do, donchano kemo sabe?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
She already knows they weren't demolished by explosives.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The listed Supreme Court hearing for Matt Campbell is an objective matter of fact. There is nothing theoretical about it. So it's your opinion the Supreme Court is 'p!ssing on peoples' graves' and that they are 'conspiracy theorists' to even consider it. Can you even see how crazy your take is or is the tired cliché just a knee jerk response to anything 9/11 instead of clear thinking?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
It's not my case.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I don't have any questions. I am just sitting in the cheap seats eating popcorn.
I asked nothing about the court. The court business is court business, and sometimes the court has to do ridiculous things, and yes, piss on graves in doing it. But that is neither here nor there, my not-so-clever-as-you-think wordsmith. I asked YOU if you think it is a waste of time. I asked YOU if you think the truth about 9/11 is different from 19 Al Queda hijackers flying planes into 3 buildings and a field in PA. Not the court, not other posters, not Jesus Christ himself . . . YOU!!!
Now stop stalling and answer the questions posed.
So can we assume this means we've finally found a conspiracy theory that you don't actually have questions about? If so, good for you. You aren't as intellectually stunted (not to mention ghoulishly self-absorbed) as you have made yourself out to be.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That's not how law works. Consider two random discrete cases in the same jurisdiction (area) bringing near-identical cases to court. One individual wins the case, the other loses. It is all to do with what the court decides at the end of the hearing. This doesn't mean one of them must have been a miscarriage of justice, or even an error of law. It simply means courts of justice have recognised leeways of how a verdict is reached. So the person who lost doesn't necessarily ipso facto qualify for an appeal. However, if their lawyer can identify grounds on which an appeal may be granted then it might be allowed to go to appeal. In England & Wales (Scotland tends to vary) you need permission from the High Court to take it to appeal, it's not automatic, it's based on learned judges weighing up your submission. In this case, it is not about Campbell vexatiously re-litigating already established legal facts; it's about the land's highest judiciary having recognised a grey constitutional area of law, over and above being aware of how different courts have a leeway in coming to different decisions yet not erring in law. These Supreme Court judges aren't going to care tuppence about what caused the WTC towers to collapse, they are ONLY looking at whether the law works as it is intended to.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
If you don't even know what my opinion is, how is it 'p!ssing on graves' to remark on Campbell's Supreme Court hearing next week? Are you really so hysterical you cannot recognised that getting a Supreme Court hearing in England is remarkable in itself? It doesn't follow it's an endorsement of Waters or an endorsement of anything. I did try to explain to you why Campbell feels he didn't have the inquest his deceased relative was legally entitled to. That is not the same as 'conspiracy theory'.