WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 criminal 'General' Richard Myers (FULL VIDEO

WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 criminal 'General' Richard Myers (FULL VIDEO)

WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 criminal 'General' Richard Myers

General Richard M. Myers is shielded from answering for his changes in testamony about his whereabouts on 9/11 by violent sicophants. Bruno Bruweiler and Jeremy Roth-Kuchel were physically assaulted and battered for simply disrupting his talk to peacefully call for an answer to his changes in testamony.

A single lone patriot arises from the crowd of attendees in support of the rights of citizens to engage in peaceful and lawful dissent without being subjected to criminal assault and battery. Once on scene, PD Officers review his observations while detaining Jeremy, and then Jeremy and Bruno are free to go.

During the "Hostage Negotiaitions" outside, General Myers is shown blathering on about Americas freedoms. One Police Officer tells Jeremy that his detention for exercising his First Ammendment Rights is "No Big Deal". Jeremys response: "The Slope of Losing our Rights is Lined With 'No Big Deal'". Indeed.

We Are Change LA on Alex Jones Tv:Confronting General Richard Myers About 9/11

framingtheworld.com...


Truthers being assaulted by government loyalist, this is pretty hard to watch how well the government has brainwashed the sheep and how far they will go into protecting their lies. Now they tell the camera person who is recording the event in the lobby that it is against the law to record or video to what’s going on. (Which I will add is another lie, they where praying on his ignorance.) I hope the guy sues the pants off the people involved for putting their filthy hands on them. Putting his head in a headlock, pushing, and shoving with such hatred.

Watch the Authorities try to WIN! Thank God, he has this all on tape You would think this was Germany all over again and assaulting people is wonderful as long as it's protecting a lying government.

The police are paid well to help silence the truth no justice for these two men.






[edit on 14-12-2009 by impressme]

I am a little confused as how that is considered peaceful and lawful.

Although no laws were broken (by the people that disrupted the speech), it was an event with a speaker, not one for open discussion. Although I do not personally agree with the website, the people that were involved, I will say they were courageous in their attempt but ultimately it was naive and silly in their manner and I believe gives more discredit to the arguments that are brought up from your side of the aisle.

Our first amendment rights do give us the right to free speech, but do not give us free reign to trample another person's first amendment rights.

All the people in that room, were attending to hear General Myers speak. They were there peaceably assembling to hear someone speak unfettered and paid for such an event. The speaker himself, was enjoying his first amendment rights by speaking on what he believed to be true (REGARDLESS of what some may think.)

By the actions of two people, with the intent to disrupt the speech from the beginning, everyone else had their first amendment rights infringed upon also.

I personally don't agree with the manner in which they were removed, but at the same time...in hind sight they said they would leave peaceably...but this...cannot be confirmed as they continued to shout and lallylag their way out of the room. Just my view.

As a thought exercise and one that I wish to hear a truthful reply to, as it is a truthful question. If Alex Jones was giving a speech on why 9-11 was a cover-up, in a room full of people that believe it was a cover-up, save two lone cameramen waiting to disrupt his speech, how do you feel it would be handled? Boo's would ensue, someone would remove the two people that disrupted the speech.

In the end

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ownbestenemy]

We Are Change vids are always good and I support what you guys are doing 200 per cent...

You might get a better response if you upload this to the site media portal, then you can embed it. Only takes 3 minutes....

Now you all get to see how the sleeping sheep behave when someone stirs them awake.
I mean did these two guys break the law. No! But apparently, one of the General’s boot lickers are above the laws of our land.

reply to post by impressme


That depends - were they tresspassing?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I am a little confused as how that is considered peaceful and lawful.

Although no laws were broken (by the people that disrupted the speech), it was an event with a speaker, not one for open discussion. Although I do not personally agree with the website, the people that were involved, I will say they were courageous in their attempt but ultimately it was naive and silly in their manner and I believe gives more discredit to the arguments that are brought up from your side of the aisle.

Our first amendment rights do give us the right to free speech, but do not give us free reign to trample another person's first amendment rights.

All the people in that room, were attending to hear General Myers speak. They were there peaceably assembling to hear someone speak unfettered and paid for such an event. The speaker himself, was enjoying his first amendment rights by speaking on what he believed to be true (REGARDLESS of what some may think.)

By the actions of two people, with the intent to disrupt the speech from the beginning, everyone else had their first amendment rights infringed upon also.

I personally don't agree with the manner in which they were removed, but at the same time...in hind sight they said they would leave peaceably...but this...cannot be confirmed as they continued to shout and lallylag their way out of the room. Just my view.

As a thought exercise and one that I wish to hear a truthful reply to, as it is a truthful question. If Alex Jones was giving a speech on why 9-11 was a cover-up, in a room full of people that believe it was a cover-up, save two lone cameramen waiting to disrupt his speech, how do you feel it would be handled? Boo's would ensue, someone would remove the two people that disrupted the speech.

In the end

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ownbestenemy]

ownbestenemy

What an excellent post. Restrained and civilised. I wish I could have thought that instead of wishing the little sh*ts were kicked out earlier.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As a thought exercise and one that I wish to hear a truthful reply to, as it is a truthful question. If Alex Jones was giving a speech on why 9-11 was a cover-up, in a room full of people that believe it was a cover-up, save two lone cameramen waiting to disrupt his speech, how do you feel it would be handled? Boo's would ensue, someone would remove the two people that disrupted the speech.

Well, according to one of your own on here, that is exactly what he did when he attended an AE911truth seminar. What say you ImaPepper?

Let me ask Pepper also. Did you get this kind of response?

reply to post by hooper


Since they obviously would have paid to be there.....NO. Not until they were threatened with it.

Originally posted by Nutter
Let me ask Pepper also. Did you get this kind of response?

Or did Gage actually invite your questions?

Originally posted by ImAPepper

One brought a three-ring binder, ¾" thick, filled with responses to David Ray Griffin's Debunking 911 Debunking book, along with a letter from the confused Gregory Urich, a former AE911Truth petition signer requesting a response. AE911Truth will forward the binder to Dr. Griffin and issue a response to the letter.

www.ae911truth.org...

They are talking about me.

That is me talking to him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

AND.......I also just discovered that CameronFox is back in disquise. Huh, ImaPepper?

i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/gage-2

That's the photo bucket link in Pepper/CameronFox's post above.

Really. These Anti-truthers need to be more savy if they intend to deceive.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Nutter]

Amazing. The security guy is quite adamant that he saw nothing, and was nowhere near the scene when the protester was assaulted.

As security, wouldn't part of his job (or his department) be to ensure the safety of all the people in the building. The security inaction spoke volumes.

The guy that manhadles the two protesters out of the room stood up very quickly, like he'd been ready/trained for it. Just IMHO.

reply to post by Nutter


Please do not make assumptions and lump me into 'one of your own'.

When earlier in my post I made a generalization in regards to 'your side of the argument', it was a correct and easily obtainable generalization because I have fully read most of Impressme's posts and I believe I have a good handle on understanding that he/she has faith in that 9/11 was a conspiracy/cover-up.

I, myself, am not quite sure. Some things make sense, other do not. Besides my thought experiment I posed, was in direct questioning of the individuals that were presented in the tape and not of the opinion of Impressme or anyone else that lies on that side of the debate.

If you didn't cherry pick my reply, you would have seen this and seen that I was commenting on the behaviors of both parties, the actions and some of the claims levied on the audio.

The guy who grabbed the second camera man, yes....complete idiot and in the wrong. At the same time, the second camera man was being combative and rude towards a police officer that was just trying to figure things out.

Both parties were at fault here. Just because one is invited to an event like this, doesn't give them a constitutional right to disrupt the event in the name of First Amendment rights.

Also, they have taken out of context when the officer says "Its not a big deal" by trying to directly connect it to his being questioned and detained and it is a stretch. Listen to the flow of conversation and one can hear that the reply of 'Its not a big deal' was more of a calming statement because the Jeremy character was rambling on and was still obviously pumped up with adrenaline.

Being not of a particularly side, I can clearly and objectively analyze these without placing bias in it. Some of them I agree with, others I disagree with.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Nutter

 

Please do not make assumptions and lump me into 'one of your own'.

My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

reply to post by Nutter


If the questions were invited then bravo I say. I would also say its a bit apples to oranges in venue, but never the less, bravo. It shows real courage and decorum to be disrupted while giving a speech about something and stop what you are doing to listen to an unprovoked question.

I do not know any one on either side of this debate's fence. I try to stay away from the labels "Truther" and "Anti-Truther". If you read some of my other posts, you would gain an understanding that I believe in the power of rhetoric and word play. The labels above are perfect examples.

Give yourself a positive connotative name while attaching a negative connotation to your adversary.

Again, it was posed as a thought exercise and not an attack. Nothing comes about from attacking.

Originally posted by Nutter


Well, according to one of your own on here, that is exactly what he did when he attended an AE911truth seminar. What say you ImaPepper?

Let me ask Pepper also. Did you get this kind of response?

HUGE difference.....

I listened to his lie infested 2 hour rant. Did I behave 100%... nope. When he stated that the Red Cross was involved in the controlled demolition, I had to ask him when they started this. (no answer was given) Sorry, I thought it was a bit much. Keep in mind, I also donated 10 dollars at the door.

At the end of his rant, I stood in line with the twoofers that were there near a microphone. I was at the microphone when they stopped taking questions.(i believe only 2 questions were asked) Afterward, Dick stood at his podium and people approached him. As I did... civilly. I approached him with my hand out introducing myself. We shook hands and I asked him the questions he, to this day fails to answer. After I stated my questions to him, he THANKED ME for being a good sport. Yes he called me a good sport! After that is when I was approached by MANY members of the truth movement.

It's all in your approach my friend. If you are interested, ask Richard Gage what happened to him when he attempted to infiltrate the AIA convention in Boston a couple years ago! There is a reason why there is nothing on his website about this. Gage changed his strategy and milks money from other twoofs so he can gain access to these conventions to spread his lies.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Care to explain why your picture is listed under "CameronFox/gage-2"?

Are you CameronFox?

Or did you steal his photos and claim them as your own?

Either way, it doesn't look too good for you.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by ImAPepper


Still trying to discredit Gage as a lair but, you really fail to give us any proof only your word.

The word “twofers” as you already know is not allowed on ATS, it is consider an insult against all people asking questions about the OS.
Try using the word spelled correctly “Truthers”

I can tell a story to, what would you like to hear?

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by hooper

 

Since they obviously would have paid to be there.....NO. Not until they were threatened with it.

Did they pay to be there? I don't like this kind of crap. People think the first ammendment is basically carte blanche for any kind of behavior - it is not, never has been and never will be.

Originally posted by hooper
I don't like this kind of crap. People think the first ammendment is basically carte blanche for any kind of behavior - it is not, never has been and never will be.

Actually I agree with you here. A seminar/speech is no place to cause a rukus.

That being said, I still feel that he was wrongly treated by the fellow attendee who grabbed him by the neck and drug him out. It was not his place to act as security.

What if something happened and that man sprained/broke his back when attempting to drag Jeremy out? Or since he was so fat, had a heart attack? I'll tell you. The private property they were on would have been liable. Does this library really want that?

There is a reason we have vigilante laws in this country. And the police in this instance decided not to go that route because it was against a "truther". Pathetic to say the least. "Truthers" have rights too.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


Ah nutter....how do you know the police officer specifically didn't do anything just because he was a 'Truther'?

From listening to the tapes again, the officer felt it was a tit-for-tat.

You are are right and in my very first post I asserted it also, that the guy was wrong in the way he grabbed Jeremy.

Now to the real world. I don't know your lifestyle or whatever, but lets just say for one minute you enjoy going to night clubs. You are there. You paid a $10 cover charge to get in. While you are in there you decided to disrupt something....I don't care, the bar, the dance floor, the DJ. Something that obviously disrupts the establishment.

Now the only thing is....you are the SECOND person to do this. The first person just got booted out not more than 30 seconds ago.

So, a patron gets in your face cause he is trying to enjoy what he paid for but some jackass doesn't know how to act with an ounce of civility and respect for his peers. The patron grabs the guy and starts to drag him out. Eventually a bouncer takes over and gets the guy out of the club.

Police show up. Grab a statement from the guy that was kicked out, the guy inside and the bouncer and realizes something.........

ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. CASE OVER. Has nothing to do with truthers....General Myers.....God or Allah.

No one was hurt. The ridiculous claim of 'Assualted and battered' goes to show the sensationalism that these guys are trying to portray.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed the parallel.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The ridiculous claim of 'Assualted and battered' goes to show the sensationalism that these guys are trying to portray.

Let me put a choke hold on you and then let's see how much you consider it "no big deal", ridiculous, and sensationalism.

The point is even a vigilante can't assualt a criminal. Proven.

So, a vigilante should not and can not assault someone who is NOT a criminal.

"The errosion of our rights is lined with NO BIG DEAL"

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Nutter]