9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 110
10
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you expect the government to set up a "take a number" system to hand out information upon request?


Well that why there are rules as to what information can an cannot be released by FOIA request.

The problem comes about from information that should be released is not.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you expect the government to set up a "take a number" system to hand out information upon request?


Well that why there are rules as to what information can an cannot be released by FOIA request.

The problem comes about from information that should be released is not.



But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
How often does evidence get released to satisfy public curiosity before all possible legal proceedings are finished?

As long as there's any possibility of needing it for prosecution or defense purposes it won't be made public other than as required in those cases so expect to see it a bit at a time as long as it it's not deemed to be sensitive information in terms of national security.

The best way (probably the only way) to see it would be to bring a case against the government requiring them to use the evidence in their defense.

Does anyone have enough non-frivolous evidence to start such a case?

There are a couple of cases ongoing that may get some results if they last long enough.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Seems those cases won't be forcing any new evidence into public view now as both were dismissed unceremoniously on 26th June (Woods & Reynolds Qui Tam cases).

more here



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?


Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


for those of us that don't have an "edication" in crime scenes, can you tell us what that would be, please?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.



Ultima... it is education. You often tell people how educated you are, while you parrot the same posts over and over.

Any luck showing the mods your NSA credentials? We are still waiting.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ultima... it is education. You often tell people how educated you are, while you parrot the same posts over and over.


Well i have to keep repeating the same facts and evidence untill the closed minded beleivers like you finally accept them.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?


Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.



My point is that what one investigator may deem to be needed evidence, another may not. My whole point is that if EVERYTHING is released, we don't need to:
1. Keep making FOIA requests.
2. Everybody gets to see the stuff that interests them.
3. If everything is released, nobody can say they're holding something back.

Regardless of my education or background in Criminology (that's what it's called by the way
, I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.


WRONG. Facts and evidence is the same for any investigator.

Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

A forensics expert is going to know what to look or in metallurgical evidence?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.


WRONG. Facts and evidence is the same for any investigator.

Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background.


Well this just goes to show you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to investigative specialties.

There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...


Yes, but i will state it again for you to understand,

"Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background."

Please read it until you can understand what it states.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...


Yes, but i will state it again for you to understand,

"Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background."

Please read it until you can understand what it states.


Evidently you didn't read what I wrote so I'll repost it for your convenience


My point is that what one investigator may deem to be needed evidence, another may not.

Here I'm making a point that REAL investigators may want to look at specific pieces of "evidence" based on their background specialty. When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.



[edit on 29-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.


Well see that where you are wrong. A "real investigator" can look at any facts and evidence and know where, how and who to go to know what the facts and evidence are saying.

You should do a little research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.


Well see that where you are wrong. A "real investigator" can look at any facts and evidence and know where, how and who to go to know what the facts and evidence are saying.

You should do a little research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.


Well I'm done discussing this with you. As example, a general investigator is not going to have the skills of a computer forensics investigator. That should be very obvious.
Oh and before posting anything, I researched criminology and forensics investigations in general at several federal sites and University sites that discuss their programs. My information came right from those sites so if I'm wrong then all those sites are wrong and as it turns out the universities that train future FBI, ATF, etc.. agents have been doing it all wrong. I'll contact them and let them know they need to contact you so they can finally learn how to do it the right way. What contact information should I give them so they can get ahold of you and learn how to do things the right way??? I'm sure they'll be really excited about finally doing it right !!!!!



[edit on 30-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I'm not sure it is US governement, but there is something wrong. As for source of evidence -- I am such source. My evidence is in thread352220/pg1 and it clearly shows that scenario of the 9/11 attack existed in Russia in late 80's. The big problem is I am unable to make it known to anyone.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well I'm done discussing this with you. As example, a general investigator is not going to have the skills of a computer forensics investigator. That should be very obvious.


But the investigator will know who to take them to that has the skills. That should be even more obvious.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I think the U.S. Government was responsible for all the events that took place on that dreadful day.
The simple facts are:
Jet fuel could never get hot enough to burned through 47 columns of solid steel reinforced concrete construction. If anything, the floors would have collasped leaving only the 47 columns standing. The pulverized concrete into dust and the speed of the falling floors to ground level. What about building #5 and the mayors bunker complex and all the secret court documents on the Bush insider trading practices. Silverstein, said lets pull it! And they watched the building fall into its own footprint. What about the thousand of witnesses that heard explosions going off inside both TRADE CENTERS before the collaspes. What about the $5 billion in Gold bars half of which belonged to the Kuwait; and only $200,000 million in gold recovered. What about Marvin Bush's role in Secure Com. What about the numerous witnesses that worked in the buildings of the Trade Center two weeks before 9-11 that heard the jack hammers and heavy equipment. I say Thermite charges were used to cut the 47 columns and Rudy G. pushed the detenator button himself. The whole Lets Roll characters calling family and friends before the Jet crashed without a single body or any remenants of a 747 jetliner that crashed. Cell phones don't work at 20,000 feet. What about the Pentagon attack and not a single picture of the worlds most protected building on the Planet. I find it hard to beleive not one single picture was shown to the America people to prove the U.S. Government was not responsible in the Pentagon attack.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


First, we need to understand that the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy story and that it has not been proved, not by a long shot.

I will never believe the official story until there has been a real investigation.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join