FBI workers remove evidence

Originally posted by HLR53K
What makes you assured that if you got them into court that they won't pull all those reports out on you?

Well thats why i stated "AS THE OFFICIAL STORY STANDS NOW" It would not hold up in court.

But if they did bring in new reports in court then they would be open to questioning. Just like of they bring in amy new evidence then it could it be questioned as to how it was collected and chain of evidence.

Like I said. If you're so damned sure that they have nothing, why not start the ball rolling yourself and take "them" (whoever you see fit) to court and call them on it? The way I see it, if you even make it that far, it can only help us because it'll force them to expose those "hidden" documents.

Well there are already cases on the books ahead of me from poeple who are experts and professionals in thier fields and all the cases from the family members.

Until I actually read about the court case in the paper or watch it on the news, the results are still pure speculation right now.

You mean like the official story is pure speculation but a lot of people still believe in it?



[edit on 14-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well thats why i stated "AS THE OFFICIAL STORY STANDS NOW" It would not hold up in court.

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, we will never know until a case actually reaches that far. They are only "on the books" as you stated, but not in actual trials yet.

But if they did bring in new reports in court then they would be open to questioning. Just like of they bring in amy new evidence then it could it be questioned as to how it was collected and chain of evidence.

Yes, that much I can agree on. But if they show that the chain of custody is intact and all procedures followed correctly, then it's still new information that we can all learn. It'll definitely help answer some of our questions. The way you worded that above quote, it seems like you're ready to doubt whatever new information that comes forth no matter what.

Well there are already cases on the books ahead of me from poeple who are experts and professionals in thier fields and all the cases from the family members.

So you actually have a case, since you stated that there are people ahead of you? Just for my knowledge and everyone elses here, do you happen to know what cases in front of you may be? The specific names of the cases so we can keep tabs on them.

You mean like the official story is pure speculation but a lot of people still believe in it?
[edit on 14-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

No! Do not put words in my mouth. I clearly stated that the outcome of a court case that directly challenged the "official story" would be speculation because so far, no one has successfully gotten that far.

Originally posted by scotty18

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
You know the smoke trail you claimed is a missile going towards the building.

I never claimed the smoke trail was a missile, I said it looked like a missile trai. You should learn to read post.

Also you need to read all the information on the Woolworth missile.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

1) You should learn how to spell.

2) You posted that it looked like a missile trail and that it was going towards the WTC, even after having a video link and being called out on it.

3) Why do you insist on lying about things that are posted on this forum for all to see?

I'll add #4 to this list:

4) Why do you run away from posts that call you out with actual facts?

Originally posted by HLR53K
The way you worded that above quote, it seems like you're ready to doubt whatever new information that comes forth no matter what.

Well i i doubt most information unless it can be validated.

So you actually have a case, since you stated that there are people ahead of you? Just for my knowledge and everyone elses here, do you happen to know what cases in front of you may be? The specific names of the cases so we can keep tabs on them.

No i do not have a case, but there are the cases that have been talked about on this forum.

Originally posted by scotty18
4) Why do you run away from posts that call you out with actual facts?

What posts with actual facts, i have not seen any post with actual facts that support thr official story ?

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i i doubt most information unless it can be validated.

Mmm. Ok, so you're a closed-minded person. Not an insult, just an observation for all based on your words.

I argree with your validation. You claim the "official story" as it stands wouldn't hold up in court. Validate that for us here. Show us a court case that directly challenges the "official story" and won.

[Insert company / person] v. United States.

No i do not have a case, but there are the cases that have been talked about on this forum.

Talked about, but not actually there. Like you said, you "doubt most information unless it can be validated". Where is the validation on those "talked about" cases? Since you believe them, there must be validation of some sort.

My point still remains. If the "official story" is as easy to cut to pieces as you claim, then why hasn't someone done it already? Surely you can't be the only one in the world that holds this view?

[edit on 15-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
4) Why do you run away from posts that call you out with actual facts?

What posts with actual facts, i have not seen any post with actual facts that support thr official story ?

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

It's amazing how often you claim to have seen no facts or proof when plenty is provided...kind of like how you insult people and then cry about others insulting you. Similar truthfulness to everything you claim on here. Pathetic.

Originally posted by HLR53K
Mmm. Ok, so you're a closed-minded person. Not an insult, just an observation for all based on your words.

NO, if anything i am one of the most open mindesd people on this forum.
Most people on here are closed minded due to the fact that the they do not want to accept anything that is shown to them that does not agree with what they believe happened.

I am going out doing research which proves i do not just go along with what i have been told, like most of the people on here.

WHICH MEANS I AM OPEN MINDED TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by scotty18
It's amazing how often you claim to have seen no facts or proof when plenty is provided...

Well then please show me this so called facts, I will be waiting.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, if anything i am one of the most open mindesd people on this forum.
Most people on here are closed minded due to the fact that the they do not want to accept anything that is shown to them that does not agree with what they believe happened.

I am going out doing research which proves i do not just go along with what i have been told, like most of the people on here.

WHICH MEANS I AM OPEN MINDED TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

But why have you been quick to dismiss the mathematical facts I've posted before (reference the "Jet engine" thread)? You could easily verify them on any website or textbook of your choice.

Do they not fit with your pre-conceived beliefs?

Sorry, off topic post. Let get back to the discussion at hand.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K]
But why have you been quick to dismiss the mathematical facts I've posted before (reference the "Jet engine" thread)? You could easily verify them on any website or textbook of your choice.

Becasue i have other facts and evidence that also are easly verified.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Becasue i have other facts and evidence that also are easly verified.

So you dismissed my math and fluid mechanics / aerodynamics which has been standing long before 9/11 even occured just because you had your own ideas?

Even though you yourself said they were facts. Facts that are the basis of why aircraft fly in the first place. You have also failed to show me where my facts were wrong, if you think they are.

If you don't object to answering that question, then we can continue, since you created the thread. If you think it's off-topic, then we can stop and refocus on the thread topic (and continue via U2U). I still apologize for taking it off-track.


But anyway, the question we should ask is if it's so easy to destroy the "official story" in court, why hasn't anyone done so? Actually take this internet forum knowledge and theories into court and see if anything new from the "official sources" come out. Win / win for both sides.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
So you dismissed my math and fluid mechanics / aerodynamics which has been standing long before 9/11 even occured just because you had your own ideas?

No, it seems you have dismissed the facts and evidence i have shown because you want to believe the official story.

Actually take this internet forum knowledge and theories into court and see if anything new from the "official sources" come out. Win / win for both sides.

I have already shown plenty of facts and evidence that shows a reasonable doubt in the official story that would hold up in court.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, it seems you have dismissed the facts and evidence i have shown because you want to believe the official story.

I only believe what the numbers tell me. The specific thing I had an issue with was you stating that as airplanes travel faster, the turbulence behind/around them decreases. It really had nothing to do with the "official story", at least my intentions. I wanted to correct your misconception on something I know to be aerodynamically impossible.

I have already shown plenty of facts and evidence that shows a reasonable doubt in the official story that would hold up in court.

Maybe. But it still stands that until someone actually does go and challenge it in open court, you're still speculating on the outcome. Like you said, there are still unknown factors that have yet to be shown.

But I would actually like to see someone challenge it in court. We all know that would take years to just get to trial, but maybe we can get some more answers in the end.

Originally posted by HLR53K
The specific thing I had an issue with was you stating that as airplanes travel faster, the turbulence behind/around them decreases.

Well thats what the reports i have posted stated, that as speed increases the turbulence decreases.