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.

 

US Courts Claim Iranian 9/11 Link

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
So people are still posting in this thread without asking questions as to the validity of the claims made?

Figures.


Its no different than the same people using the money train / 2.3 trillion dollars missing argument. If they spent more than 30 seconds and actually did some research, they would know the 2.3 trillion dollars stemmed from internal audits and investigations going back to the 1970's. The 2.3 trillion includes all monies from the 1970's to Sept 10 2001.

Instead people are so quick to hate the government because they are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they try to attribute the 2.3 trilliion missing just form the Bush administration.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
Found more info about this Judge

dailycaller.com...


They are even using supposed family of 9/11 victims.And supposedly they were even looking thankfully up in the sky during the verdict that now blames iran.




“My husband’s name is on that lawsuit,” said Fiona Havlish, the lead plaintiff in the case against Iran. Her spouse, Donald G. Havlish, Jr, perished on the 101st floor of the World Trade Center’s South Tower. “This is about my husband, all our husbands, our loved ones, our sons, our daughters.” Ellen Saracini, whose husband, Victor Saracini, took off that morning at the controls of United Airlines Flight 175, called it “a historic day” because a U.S. court found that Iran was responsible for the attacks. “When I heard the verdict, I just smiled up to Victor and said, ‘we’re still thinking about you up there.’” Read more: dailycaller.com...


One would think that that person would be pissed off to no end.Be it because she realized that she apparently had been screaming for innocent people to bleed and die in punishment for 9/11 or that her husband and fellow 9/11 victims and their families had just been used to fuel yet another war.

There really is no in between on this one,If one was open to believe the text quoted here to be true at all which i seriously doubt,



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 

Dear Rafe_,

Could you explain yourself a little more? I haven't followed the 9/11 stuff very closely and I'm not sure what you're saying.

They are even using supposed family of 9/11 victims.
Are you saying that the people in the court room are unrelated to the people who died in the Twin Towers?

If the families are fake, how far does this go? Are the lawyers and the judge and the witnesses (including the French judge) and the reports faked? I'm just trying to see how far this goes.

Be it because she realized that she apparently had been screaming for innocent people to bleed and die in punishment for 9/11 or that her husband and fellow 9/11 victims and their families had just been used to fuel yet another war.
Do you mean that if she had yelled something like "Get those blankety-blanks who killed my husband!" She was really thinking "Kill some innocent people?" Why do you think she wasn't just crying out of relief that it had been settled?


If one was open to believe the text quoted here to be true at all which i seriously doubt,
Did the reporters fake the story in The Daily Caller?

You see, Rafe_ I get confused easily. I'd appreciate any help you care to offer in clearing this up for me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
They really don't have any new material do they?


"Iran's bad, they have weapons!"

"Silence"

"But, but they have nuclear weapons!"

"Criket Chirp"

"Ok, so get this, they had a role in 911!"

"tumble weed rolls by"

"Ok, ok, but they are killing their own people right now! And they have chemical weapons and are taking sides with exterterrestrials!"

"..."

"Ok, screw this, we're attacking them anyways...."



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Not sure about the court, but a default judgment is a win for one party when the other does not show up.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you read the entire thread, you would have seen the article about the judge presiding over this suit. But you are correct in one thing: there was no criminal trial, the plaintiff won because the defendant didn't respond.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Dear Charles1952

Yes it is very evident how easily confused you get.I will see and try if i can lower the bar on this one for you.



Dear Rafe_,

Could you explain yourself a little more? I haven't followed the 9/11 stuff very closely and I'm not sure what you're saying.

They are even using supposed family of 9/11 victims.

Are you saying that the people in the court room are unrelated to the people who died in the Twin Towers?


I am saying that i don't believe that has been said.




If the families are fake, how far does this go? Are the lawyers and the judge and the witnesses (including the French judge) and the reports faked? I'm just trying to see how far this goes.


(see the previous answer i made for you)
If i were you i would try to avoid thinking like that to see how far it goes as i am convinced that is a very unhealthy and paranoid way of thinking,A bit absurd even but i digress.


Be it because she realized that she apparently had been screaming for innocent people to bleed and die in punishment for 9/11 or that her husband and fellow 9/11 victims and their families had just been used to fuel yet another war.

Do you mean that if she had yelled something like "Get those blankety-blanks who killed my husband!" She was really thinking "Kill some innocent people?" Why do you think she wasn't just crying out of relief that it had been settled?


Ok i think this needs a bit less of adult approach in explaining.

You see ,The mommy in this story has so far been told that it was other bad people that killed her husband (the papa) and the good people went out to kill the bad people in a long and expensive war a long time ago and the mommy was very very happy about this.Now all of a sudden she learns that those people killed in the name of her family in that war have never been guilty of hurting the papa and they went to war with the wrong country,However a new common enemy of the 'good' people have suddenly been blamed for killing the papa just 10 years later.

Now it is a bit strange that the mommy does not seem to feel guilt but pleasure and relief but no disbelieve whatsoever.

And she lived happily ever after ,regardless (or so they say)


If one was open to believe the text quoted here to be true at all which i seriously doubt,

Did the reporters fake the story in The Daily Caller?

You see, Rafe_ I get confused easily. I'd appreciate any help you care to offer in clearing this up for me.

With respect,
Charles1952


I don't think the reporters themselves faked the story.I think this is what they are led to believe,Much like the people who are reading their story's

Does not sound so far fetched does it ? I mean for sure this does not even approach the lone gunman theory in absurdity by a landslide does it and that lie has been tossed in a court of law.




I hope this helps unconfuse you and understand the simple comments and arguments you seemed to struggle with.


sincerely,





edit on 18-12-2011 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Yup , Barry has really lost alot of friends , looks like no one is buying this one little bit. Bravo Barry , you`ve done it again.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 

One small thing, the judge has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before he enters a default judgment. If there's no evidence at all it will be thrown out for failure to state a claim.

edit on 18-12-2011 by charles1952 because: Bracket



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Dear Rafe_,

I didn't think you could do it, but your response has increased my confusion. Why the attitude?
I wrote to you looking for understanding and clarification and you slap me? Let me know what I've done and I'll give you every apology due. But if you just don't like me, that's ok too. Maybe the topic has gotten the best of your temper?

Anyway, to the case at hand.

We have a memorandum of law of about 125 pages and at least three dozen exhibits in the exhibit index. Documents and testimony come from Europe, the US, and the Middle East. Much of this information was gathered before Bush was elected. If any of this was faked, and that got out, the US would suffer a huge diplomatic blow from which recovery would be nearly impossible.

So who faked it, Clinton? Not Bush, too much evidence came from before he was elected. Did Obama fake all this information? No, because the suit was originally filed in 2002.

Remember, in the Bush years (2004-2008) there was a law prohibiting the suit from going forward. So is the claim that Bush set up the plan, then got a law passed to make the plan impossible?

And what does the US gain from taking this gigantic risk? One more excuse to throw on the pile of excuses to go to war with Iran? The US doesn't need this, it has the threat to Israel, and the IAEA report if it wanted to go to war. There has been no coherent reason presented why it would bother to fake it. Besides, if all this information was governmental, why would Bush just sit on it for seven years then hand it to Obama who sits on it for three more?

And the idea that the reporters, who were in the courtroom with access to the judge and the attorneys, were misled? Who misled them. The judge? The attorneys?

Really, this is getting more and more impossible.


I hope this helps unconfuse you and understand the simple comments and arguments you seemed to struggle with.
Your response has been a big help. I struggled with your arguments, but now that you've had a chance to explain your thoughts, it's all pretty clear. I'm pretty sure I know what happened.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

Washington needs to simply S-T-F-U with this rubbish. [...]
washington is USING it to their 'advantage'... i


Where did it say anywhere in the OP anything about Washington. Read the damn story. This was a document filed by some individual. The piece of paper will sit still for anything written on it. Just like some people's brains.


Washington = White House = Government = Propaganda



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Rafe_,

I didn't think you could do it, but your response has increased my confusion. Why the attitude?
I wrote to you looking for understanding and clarification and you slap me? Let me know what I've done and I'll give you every apology due. But if you just don't like me, that's ok too. Maybe the topic has gotten the best of your temper?

Anyway, to the case at hand.

We have a memorandum of law of about 125 pages and at least three dozen exhibits in the exhibit index. Documents and testimony come from Europe, the US, and the Middle East. Much of this information was gathered before Bush was elected. If any of this was faked, and that got out, the US would suffer a huge diplomatic blow from which recovery would be nearly impossible.

So who faked it, Clinton? Not Bush, too much evidence came from before he was elected. Did Obama fake all this information? No, because the suit was originally filed in 2002.

Remember, in the Bush years (2004-2008) there was a law prohibiting the suit from going forward. So is the claim that Bush set up the plan, then got a law passed to make the plan impossible?

And what does the US gain from taking this gigantic risk? One more excuse to throw on the pile of excuses to go to war with Iran? The US doesn't need this, it has the threat to Israel, and the IAEA report if it wanted to go to war. There has been no coherent reason presented why it would bother to fake it. Besides, if all this information was governmental, why would Bush just sit on it for seven years then hand it to Obama who sits on it for three more?

And the idea that the reporters, who were in the courtroom with access to the judge and the attorneys, were misled? Who misled them. The judge? The attorneys?

Really, this is getting more and more impossible.


I hope this helps unconfuse you and understand the simple comments and arguments you seemed to struggle with.
Your response has been a big help. I struggled with your arguments, but now that you've had a chance to explain your thoughts, it's all pretty clear. I'm pretty sure I know what happened.

With respect,
Charles1952




Nah it is ok mate.I now know you weren't trying to be sarcastic or condencending which was the impression i had at the time ,i know better now and i will give you MY apologies for that one.

As for the evidence and the motive.If this evidence has been there before bush even got elected then that would make the entire matter even worse.since after 9/11 they went to war with Irak not iran which they now ,10 years later (no less) try to blame for the very same thing.So all this has come to pass while all this time this evidence of iran being the one to perpetrate was there already.

Note that in the official investigation they said that " the source of the funding to make the 9/11 attack possible was of little importance"

^how does that all even make sense i ask you.






As for the motive ,War is a big industry , Israel, the U.S having a important role to fullfil again in a time were its influence is on a slipery slope.

And probably a few more motives but these should be the most obvious.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 

Dear Rafe_,

No harm, no foul. I'd hate to lose you as a discussion partner.

It may be that this topic has been shouldered aside by other issues, but just in case you want to see what the lawyers were arguing, here are some links to the case:

Memoranda of Law (1 and 3)

Affidavit Index

List of Exhibits

All right, I know it's a ton of stuff. I haven't looked at it all myself. But if you do some skimming, you might find some interesting things.

All the best.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
What...what court makes a ruling on December 24??? What courts are even open on the 23rd...is this link a Iran website...if so enough said....lets not jump to conclussions until this goes mainstream and it true it will....



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I do not believe it is very hard to see Iran involved with these Terrorist as seen below.

--------------------------------------------------


Ten expert witnesses including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, two former CIA case officers, two investigative journalists, and an Iran analyst who has testified in 25 cases involving Iranian terrorism.

Three Iranian defectors who were operatives of MOIS and the IRGC. Witness X, whose dramatic testimony was previously filed under seal, was revealed to be Abolghasem Mesbahi, a former MOIS operative in charge of Iran's espionage operations in Western Europe. Judge Daniels found that Mesbahi has testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists, including the Mykonos case in Germany and the AMIA case in Argentina, and found to be highly reliable and credible.

Expert and U.S. government evidence also confirmed that Iran facilitated the escape of al Qaeda leaders and members from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan into Iran and provided safe haven inside Iran after 9/11.

Abolghasem Mesbahi testified he was part of an IRGC-MOIS task force that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the U.S., code-named "Shaitan dar Atash" ("Satan in Flames") which included crashing hijacked passenger airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. During the weeks before 9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside Iran's government indicating that the Shaitan dar Atash plan had been activated.

Mesbahi also testified that in 2000 Iran used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757- 767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists. Due to U.S. trade sanctions, Iran has never had any Boeing 757-767-777 aircraft, but all the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft.

Attorneys emphasized that it is important to understand that Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. The attorneys cited their national security and intelligence experts, including Dr. Patrick Clawson, Dr. Bruce Tefft, Clare Lopez, Kenneth Timmerman, Dr. Ronen Bergman, Edgar Adamson, and 9/11 Commission staff members Dietrich Snell, Dr. Daniel Byman, and Janice Kephart, as well as the published writings of Robert Baer, to explain how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi'a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the "Great Satan") and Israel (the "Lesser Satan").



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Thanks for the information.

Secondly Iran has responded to the case as well s the verdict by verbally dismissing it.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 

One small thing, the judge has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before he enters a default judgment. If there's no evidence at all it will be thrown out for failure to state a claim.

edit on 18-12-2011 by charles1952 because: Bracket

Maybe they have different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there in the Central Time Zone, but the rules everywhere else provide for the entry of a Default by the Clerk of the Court (and not the judge) under FRCP 55.01. If damages sought in the complaint are liquidated, there need be no hearing on the issue of liability. And if there is a hearing for some reason, say to liquidate damages, the judge MUST accept as true any evidence that is uncontroverted as a result of a party not showing up after not having filed a responsive pleading



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 

Dear F4guy, and anyone else who has read this far,

Thank you for your post. I WAS WRONG AND I SCREWED UP. My mistake came in combining two lines of thought. One line was that the judge had accepted the matter for a hearing (making me think that there had been an initial appearance of some sort), and the other was that Iran did not appear in court.

This is not an excuse, I was wrong. It's more of an explanation and warning to others. (Oh, it's a DC court so it would have been Eastern Time. We don't innovate much out here.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Surely we should contact someone at the Nobel Peace Prize and see if we can get Barrry another trophy. He surely deserves another shiney object.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
Surely we should contact someone at the Nobel Peace Prize and see if we can get Barrry another trophy. He surely deserves another shiney object.


You didn't read a single word of ths entire thread, did you? Since you didn't, we'll fill you in a little. It is about a US District Court in DC entering a default in a case. Since you obviously skipped 3rd grade civics class, that is the judicial Branch. You know, that one described in Article 3 of the Constitution. It has nothing at all to do with Obama, who is in the Executive Branch. You could probably do better than engage in a "Ready!Fire!Aim! exercise. But maybe not.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join