It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 family's trial & cover up of evidence

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I think I know what the strategy is here for the defendants and government they are gonna delay and file motions hoping to frustrate the families and protect the airlines and government from any further legal action.While making the victims families look like con artists and opportunists looking to make a quick buck.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


Exactly because the gov knows if it went to a jury trial with all of the nation that now thinks the OS regarding 911 is such a sham job, they will lose! I think it also provides an insight as to the very attitude that goes along with protecting the OS line by treating victim's familys this way.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
You made a speech , away from the question, and of course lesser minds fell for it

QUESTION again: A Judge Not allowing pertinent witnesses and evidence to be presented , to seek the truth.

Dave . Im not the Tri guy , answer please.


I don't know how many times I gotta say this...you need to stop going to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for your information, becuase all they want to do is play mind games with your head and get you all paranoid over shadows. The material you're quoting is being heavily edited by this Tom Flocco character, and his writeup is just plain godawful bad.

For one thing, I looked up this judge this con artist is griping about, and I see the judge is actually involved with quite a number of 9/11 related cases, but Flocco is merging together with his fast and loose presentation so I can't find any specific details. Here is a short list of cases Hellerstein is ruling on-

Hellerstein court cases

I don't know the details of the case that Flocco is referring to, but if it's anything like the request for the parents of Paul Wesley Ambrose to subpoena C. Everett Koop to "prove" their son could have become surgeon general some day, it obviously was dismissed becuase it was speculative and had absolutely nothign to do with anything. I absolutely guarantee that the judge declared why these particular requests were overturned becuase judges have to declare why such requests were overturned. I also likewise guarantee that this con artist Tom Flocco guy knows why the judge overturned the requests- he would have to know if he knows all these other details- but he isn't telling you what it is becuase he's a con artist and wants to get you to think something sinister is going on. You asked me why the judge overturned these requests, so I put the question back to you- what reason did the judge give in his decision in overturning these requests? I don't know and Flocco refuses to tell us.

Then there's THIS cute little stunt Tom Flocco is trying to pull...


It is not known whether evidence sequestered in the TSA “reading room” indicates whether Bush administration officials met with airline executives to discuss strong evidence in the form of pre-9/11 presidential briefs and personal experience in Genoa, Italy with Muslim air attack threats—either of which would implicate President Bush and/or the airline executives themselves as having prior knowledge of the attacks while either failing to take strong and decisive action or letting them occur to fulfill other unnamed geo-political, financial or oil agendas.


This is 100% Flocco's own editorial, not from the court proceedings, and it's nothing but innuendo. Take a look at the following:

"It is not known whether police ever interviewed Sean48 on whether he had any sexual contact with children or contact of any kind with children who have been abducted and are currently missing, either of which would implicate Sean48 as being a possible sexual predator involved in possible homicides of unknown numbers of children"

All I did was change the names and events that Flocco listed, and I just accused you of being a child molestor and murderer without ever actually coming out and saying you're a child molestor and murderer. Note I never said anywhere that you ARE a child molestor OR a murderer, so if anyone read this and got the idea you're a child molestor/murderer, hey, it's not my fault, he came up with that idea on his own.

I posted this becuase Tom Flocco is pulling EXACTLY the very same innuendo dropping stunt here, with these supposed meetings with airline officials and supposed intelligence briefings supposedly to fulfull a supposed secret agenda, all to get you to believe somethign sinister is going on without comign out and saying it. Why is he doing this? BECUASE HE'S ONE OF THOSE CON ARTISTS BEHIND THOSE DAMNED FOOL CONSPIRACY WEB SITES TRYING TO GET YOU ALL PARANOID OVER SHADOWS, that's why. You're not making Tom Flocco look good. Going to Tom Flocco is only making yourselves look bad.

All this really is neither here nor there, actually. If you conspiracy people have to resort to arguing over such fringe, outer space topics like "why did the judge overturn subpoena requests" in order to keep your conspiracy stories alive, you might as well go find a different conspiracy to support.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


As usual , I will go look up on Flocco on what you said, no time now.

As far as supporting a CT, it's no longer a Theory, just a Conspiracy.

Later Dave



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 
Hi Sean that is an extract from Flocco's site, it has to do with evidence gathering by lawyers and not a specific court case. You really have to read all on that site for the proper context.That's why I posted about the German police information, which is pretty obvious in its content.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Morgan Reynolds is an economist, he says so in his collaboration with Judy Wood, who is a materials engineer. I don't see anywhere that Morgan Reynolds pretended to be anything other that what he says he is. So why say he pretended if he didn't. If you feel he was not qualified to make (whatever) comments on material engineering, then say just that, not that he was pretending to be a material engineer. No harm, but if you have a belief about something fair enough, but it's not right to invent a story to back it up.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Morgan Reynolds is an economist, he says so in his collaboration with Judy Wood, who is a materials engineer. I don't see anywhere that Morgan Reynolds pretended to be anything other that what he says he is. So why say he pretended if he didn't.


If you're looking at Morgan Reynold's bio, you'll note that he filed an independent lawsuit against NIST on the grounds the NIST report was a fraudulent document. The NIST report is among other things a materials study.

The reason I say Morgan Reynolds is pretending to be a materials engineer is the backbone of his complaint, that-

"Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known as it is all but obvious that hollow aluminum cannot glide through reinforced steel."

This isn't obvious at all. For him to make such a statement, he necessarily needs to know the physical properties of aircraft aluminum as well as the physical properties of structural steel, plus he needs to be able to calculate the effects of aircraft aluminum when it strikes structural steel at the velocity that the planes were travelling at the time. This is 100% a materials engineering study.

Moreover, in section 15 he lectures that certain NIST materials engineers involved in the study "should have found" obvious evidence in the materials they were analyzing. If he *isn't* pretending to be a materials engineer here, then he's simply making up stupid sounding accusations like an eight year old.

Morgan Reynolds complaint can be found here:

Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit against NIST


Not that it matters, becuase someone with a background in economics is patently being a complete phony by contesting a report created by actual materials engineers. If he had legitimate concerns, he should have been able to list what they are, not simply state "it's obvious" and the researchers "should have known".



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'll try again, For the last time. But first, I didn't say what I looked at was any Bio or autobio. Morgan Reynolds in his collaboration with Judy Woods is stated as being an Economist, if a biography or Autobiography says that he is a Material engineer, then that is pretending but I don't see that anywhere. So, and especially since this thread is about courts of law, why don't you take Morgan Reynolds to court for pretending to be a Materials engineer and see how far it gets. You see, when you made your original post about pretenders it was left for people to puzzle over whether what you said was based in fact, or merely your opinion..IMO...IMHO



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Holy spook night Bat Man It must be Halloween.
Are you sure It was September 11 or October 31?
This is one screwed up tail chasing nonsense thread.
No Arab terrorists, No plane on the lawn. Lots of Mossad, CIA, FBI and a mountain of LIES,
Tom Flocco rocks!!



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"No harm, but if you have a belief about something fair enough, but it's not right to invent a story to back it up."

The perpetrators invented a story to back up 9/11, so is it really odd to have the 9/11 apologists do the same thing to cover the story?

Unless you are blind, there has been a concerted effort to keep 9/11 cases and evidence out of the court system. If they're using the same judges for these 9/11 cases, the reason is obvious.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 
I agree with you at least regards this thread. One poster here has used the word pretender in regard to an individual who patently is not a pretender in his profession, and who has not pretended to be a professional in any other field. The poster has now modified what he/she said as merely speculative, or an opinion so cannot be taken as definitive.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 
I agree with you at least regards this thread. One poster here has used the word pretender in regard to an individual who patently is not a pretender in his profession, and who has not pretended to be a professional in any other field. The poster has now modified what he/she said as merely speculative, or an opinion so cannot be taken as definitive.


Oh, good grief, this is like arguing over whether farts stink or whether they just smell bad. But, if you insist...I withdraw my accusation that Morgan Reynolds is pretending he's a materials engineer.

He is however making commentaries and criticizing materials engineering reports and says he sees things that materials engineers should have seen, but aren't, based on expertise on materials engineering he simply doesn't have. He then uses this undeserved attitude of materials engineering competency to claim it's an indication of a conspriacy, and then uses that in turn to file a lawsuit against materials engineers and the report the materials engineers created.

But other than all that, no, he isn't trying to pretend he's a materials engineer. Thanks for setting the record straight.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join