Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

Originally posted by REMISNE
Please show me 1 official FBI crime scene report that matches wreckage to a 757 or do not post on this subject again.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The evidence was presented in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, including Flight 77's FDR, as you very well know so how about you stop trolling here?

And I do not listen to trolls that want people to shut up because the trolls refuse to accept the truth!

Originally posted by dereks
The evidence was presented in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, including Flight 77's FDR

The exhibts for that trial were not good evidence, they could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11. The exhibits would be argued in a new trail to suport the official story.

Also the FDR has not been matched to the plane by serial or part number.




[edit on 10-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by dereks

The exhibts for that trial were not good evidence

Good enough to be stipulated to as authentic by all parties to the trial. Good enough that defendent entered a guilty plea.

they could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

He has not yet been charged, so your statement is false. As stipulated by the FBI, he will be charged when and if ever captured. He was named as a co-conspirator in the above mentioned trial.

The exhibits would be argued in a new trail to suport the official story.

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

Also the FDR has not been matched to the plane by serial or part number.

The data recorders have been certified by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB, a slightly higher authotiry on the matter than yourself.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by redgy

 

William Rodriguez, the man with the keys, heard explosions.

That is not what he said in 2001, hearing explosions is just something he made up later for his speaking tour

Did William Rodriguez tell you that himself, or is that your assumption, maybe based on his CNN interview on that day, in which he mentions "rumbles", two I think. I have heard many explosions, I know what they sound like in the air...what do you think an explosion sounds like in the air, in real time.

Originally posted by hooper
Good enough to be stipulated to as authentic by all parties to the trial. Good enough that defendent entered a guilty plea.

Do you really think he was going to plead not guilty or found not guilty?

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

no, legal fact.

The data recorders have been certified by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB, a slightly higher authotiry on the matter than yourself.

But the report did not contain the part and serial numbers that are required per NTSB regulations.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

no, legal fact.

And exactly what "legal fact" dictates what an attorney will or will not do in a future trial? No attorney is legally obligated to argue any evidence. As shown in the Mossaoui trial, the defense stipulated to the authenticity of the evidence, what legal fact dictates that when the evidence is again presented in say the OBL trial the attorney must argue the evidence and not just again stipulate to the obvious and overwhelming facts of 9/11 as a product of terrorism perpetrated by foreign agents?

But the report did not contain the part and serial numbers that are required per NTSB regulations.

Proving, beyond the shadown of a doubt, that your demand for this trivia in this case, is without merit, precedence or foundation.

Originally posted by hooper
And exactly what "legal fact" dictates what an attorney will or will not do in a future trial?

Fact, no exhibt will be allowed into evidence unless the judge allows it into evidence.

Proving, beyond the shadown of a doubt, that your demand for this trivia in this case, is without merit, precedence or foundation.

Well here is the regulation showing that you are just a troll and do not do any research. See itmes 2 and 3.

www.ntsb.gov...
3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout:

! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number.

I wonder how many paid shills have flocked to this thread?

They did a really good job on a recent thread concerning here: 1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

They rapidly turned it into a troll about chemtrails.

It would seem to me, judging by the haste with which they descend on 9/11 threads, that 9/11 has become a huge priority for someone. That's a good sign

Give it up guys. Or at least get don't emotionally attached to your work, 'cos you're losing. It's all on video

[edit on 11-3-2010 by rizla]

And now this thread turns into legalese. Is this another strategy? Lead the thread into a direction so boring that people switch off?

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Fact, no exhibt will be allowed into evidence unless the judge allows it into evidence.

And you know for a fact that the next time this evidence is represent the judge in the case will disallow it? Do you also know tonight's lottery numbers?

Well here is the regulation showing that you are just a troll and do not do any research. See itmes 2 and 3.

www.ntsb.gov...
3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout:

! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number.

Really, look at that again, read it real close. To whom is the reg addressed, the group submitting the recorder or the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division? It is telling anyone who submits a device what is required in order to "facilitate data readout". Not to confirm ownership, etc. The Chief of Vehicle Recorder Divison is the final arbiter not the reg. And in this case, much to your chagrin, he signed off on it because, he having experience and a rational mind was able to come to the obvious conclusion that what was submitted was the FDR for the plane involved in FLight 93.

Originally posted by hooper
And you know for a fact that the next time this evidence is represent the judge in the case will disallow it?

Its up to how the lawyers argue the exhibt.

Really, look at that again, read it real close.

Yes it states that you have to have the part and serial numbers which is not in the report.

So tell me why if they have the other information why don't they have the part and serial numbers in the report?

The part and serail numbers are missing form the report so how can you match the FDR to the plane without the part and serial numbers?



[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Its up to how the lawyers argue the exhibt.

But you stated in no uncertain terms that it will be argued, that this a "leagl fact" now your backpeddling and saying that it is up the the lawyers, which has always been the case. And in the one trial where the evidence was submitted it was stipulated as to its authenticity by all parties with further foundation. So which is it? Is it a "legal fact" that it absolutely must be argued or do the parties and the judge have the legal lattitude to stipulate to the facts as presented, in this case by the prosecution?

Really, look at that again, read it real close.

The part and serail numbers are missing form the report so how can you match the FDR to the plane without the part and serial numbers?

Well lets see what we have short of the numbers. It is definetly an FDR. That is not in argument. Or is it? So we all agree what was submitted was an FDR. Where did it come from? Well, they would indicate the location where the FDR was found. By coincedence it is the last known location of Flight 93, the site of an airplane crash, the site where the personal items of the last known passengers of Flight 93 were found. There are no other plane crashes in the area. Without anything to the contrary this flight data recorder is then established as having originated from the only plane that crashed at the same place as it was found.

Originally posted by hooper
But you stated in no uncertain terms that it will be argued, that this a "leagl fact" now your backpeddling and saying that it is up the the lawyers, which has always been the case.

Yes as stated its up to the lawyers to argue the exhibts but its up to the judge if he decides to let it in as evidence.

By coincedence it is the last known location of Flight 93, the site of an airplane crash, the site where the personal items of the last known passengers of Flight 93 were found.

But no official reports matching the FDR to the plane by part or serial number.

The OP video cannot be disputed, procedures are procedures, NIST changed the rules to suit their outcome.
Every NIST member involved in their criminal cover reports should be put on trial, they liars, plain and simple. Perverting the course of justice is the very least they are guilty of.

reply to post by thegameisup

The OP video cannot be disputed, procedures are procedures, NIST changed the rules to suit their outcome.

If I am not mistaken (and I don't feel like watching the thing again) didn't this guy say that the NFPA is a guideline and not absolute? Therefore, procedures AREN"T procedures and it is at the discretion of the investigators as to what is critical and what is not, and in this case searching for accelerants was deemed stupid.

Every NIST member involved in their criminal cover reports should be put on trial, they liars, plain and simple. Perverting the course of justice is the very least they are guilty of.

Yeah, well, good luck with that. You'll have to convince more people than you can fit in your average walk-in closet before that happens.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I too fully support a real investigation into 911!!! ANYONE ELSE?

Originally posted by hooper


If I am not mistaken (and I don't feel like watching the thing again) didn't this guy say that the NFPA is a guideline and not absolute? Therefore, procedures AREN"T procedures and it is at the discretion of the investigators as to what is critical and what is not, and in this case searching for accelerants was deemed stupid.

You should not attempt to answer something if you haven't watched the video. When you have watched it again in full come back and make accurate comments.

Your IQ seems very, very low, you seem like a lost little sheep following all the OS debunkers on here, parroting all their BS. Either that or you are here to deliberately act dumb and help defend the OS lies. I suspect a bit of each of those, you're definitely not the brightest person.

Here you go, educate yourself: educate-yourself.org...

Go research every single one of these reports about explosions, go do some real 9/11 research, and then then go read the NFPA.

Maybe you might learn something, but I doubt it because you just don't have the brain cells to cope with anything other than what you are told by the TV.

Yeah, well, good luck with that. You'll have to convince more people than you can fit in your average walk-in closet before that happens.

No luck needed, people are very aware of what is going on, it's only you and a couple of your OS defending colleagues clinging onto the NIST report, to most people it's just a large joke book!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


well for one thing he is not spitting on anyone ....procedures for a investigaton were not followed...he is not saying it was his brothers fault...it is the whole investigation was railroaded...but hey...you go on....because the real people who are being spit on is the same ones you are referring to...they are being spit upon by the same people whom employ them ....they are spit on by the highers ups who do not allow them to do their jobs...why is it people think because other feel the 9/11 fiasco was a coverup...how is it spitting on people who died.

Millions are dying because they are being spit on by the false flag wars because of 9/11...if peolpe die under a load of lies...how on this green earth is this honoring them....if a murderer kills someone...how would it be honoring them to just let the murderer get away with...why not take that venom and point it in the correct direction before others needlessly die for the true criminal...Think of all the soldiers dying for a false cause.///but i guess that is ok in your eyes huh.

All you have to do is listen to this...but yet the OSers...think this is ok...




also the Oser's keep quoting NIST and FEMA

Google Video Link

I just do not understand ths kind of mentality...It is baffling....and extremely decietful...as to why so many theories from truthers...It is because of so many lies by the OS.