Harvard Lecture on 9/11 research and government manipulations

[x0Maximilian0x]

Lots of people are invited to speak at Harvard including some rapper who uses 3 letters instead of a name. It don't mean sh't to speak at Harvard.

Do you ever look at the indisputable facts presented...yes there are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

 

[daws101]

Lots of people are invited to speak at Harvard including some rapper who uses 3 letters instead of a name. It don't mean sh't to speak at Harvard.

Do you ever look at the indisputable facts presented...yes there are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

hey ass clown , what you laughingly refer to as "the indisputable facts"
are and have been in dispute for 11years ,if they weren't ,we would not be having this conversation...are you this stupid all the time or is it a hobby?

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

Lots of people are invited to speak at Harvard including some rapper who uses 3 letters instead of a name. It don't mean sh't to speak at Harvard.

Do you ever look at the indisputable facts presented...yes there are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

hey ass clown , what you laughingly refer to as "the indisputable facts"
are and have been in dispute for 11years ,if they weren't ,we would not be having this conversation...are you this stupid all the time or is it a hobby?

Apparently you did not see or connect this from previous post...

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

If you had not seen it or connected it then it brings to question if you fall into the catagory with the American police, etc which are intentionally hired with low I.Q.s?

Do you need links for that too?

 

[daws101]

Do you ever look at the indisputable facts presented...yes there are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

hey ass clown , what you laughingly refer to as "the indisputable facts"
are and have been in dispute for 11years ,if they weren't ,we would not be having this conversation...are you this stupid all the time or is it a hobby?

Apparently you did not see or connect this from previous post...

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

If you had not seen it or connected it then it brings to question if you fall into the catagory with the American police, etc which are intentionally hired with low I.Q.s?

Do you need links for that too?

dodge

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

hey ass clown , what you laughingly refer to as "the indisputable facts"
are and have been in dispute for 11years ,if they weren't ,we would not be having this conversation...are you this stupid all the time or is it a hobby?

Apparently you did not see or connect this from previous post...

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

If you had not seen it or connected it then it brings to question if you fall into the catagory with the American police, etc which are intentionally hired with low I.Q.s?

Do you need links for that too?

dodge

Dodge is good but I drive a Chevy lately...

How about truly looking at the information?

 

[daws101]

Apparently you did not see or connect this from previous post...

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

If you had not seen it or connected it then it brings to question if you fall into the catagory with the American police, etc which are intentionally hired with low I.Q.s?

Do you need links for that too?

dodge

Dodge is good but I drive a Chevy lately...

How about truly looking at the information?

way ahead of you...there is nothing you can post that backs your claim that has not been debunked...
try to remember this:THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
IF YOU ATTEMPTING TO PROVE A COVER UP THEN YOU MUST HAVE PROOF.
YOU HAVE NONE...
WHAT YOU DO HAVE IS SPECIOUS SPECULATION BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.

 

[eots]

dodge

Dodge is good but I drive a Chevy lately...

How about truly looking at the information?

way ahead of you...there is nothing you can post that backs your claim that has not been debunked...
try to remember this:THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
IF YOU ATTEMPTING TO PROVE A COVER UP THEN YOU MUST HAVE PROOF.
YOU HAVE NONE...
WHAT YOU DO HAVE IS SPECIOUS SPECULATION BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.

actually that exactly what you have with the official story

 

[eots]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

 

[daws101]

Dodge is good but I drive a Chevy lately...

How about truly looking at the information?

way ahead of you...there is nothing you can post that backs your claim that has not been debunked...
try to remember this:THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
IF YOU ATTEMPTING TO PROVE A COVER UP THEN YOU MUST HAVE PROOF.
YOU HAVE NONE...
WHAT YOU DO HAVE IS SPECIOUS SPECULATION BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.

actually that exactly what you have with the official story

how did I know you'd say that...

 

[daws101]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

So if a new...real...investigation happens in the near future will you "O.J. Simpson Defense Attorneys" be investigated?

If something is a true story then why does it require full time propaganda defending it?

If there is a new and real investigation will you be investigated?....simply for the fact how you attempt to sway opinions {votes away from} facts?

So if a revolution does occur like I predict, will you be investigated as a propagandist war crimiminal?

 

[eots]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

you are splitting hairs and playing word games ..if those who where directly involved feel there was a cover up and offer proof in the form of their testimony as to how they where blocked and deterred from fact finding then you have established there is a cover up

 

[daws101]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

So if a new...real...investigation happens in the near future will you "O.J. Simpson Defense Attorneys" be investigated?

If something is a true story then why does it require full time propaganda defending it?

If there is a new and real investigation will you be investigated?....simply for the fact how you attempt to sway opinions {votes away from} facts?

So if a revolution does occur like I predict, will you be investigated as a propagandist war crimiminal?

you have no proof that your version of events on 911 is true.
you also have no proof that propaganda is being used to defend it .
in reality it's just the opposite ...all info from "truth" sources is propaganda as it is based on a false premise ...just like it was used against the Jews in Germany and Japanese Americans in ww2.
if there is a new investigation, you do realize that twoofers will not be part of it due to bias...
judging from your posts any predictions you make are improbable in the extreme..
about the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a black bear in the same day ..
step out if front of a bus and do us all a favor, you whining neo fascist dick weed!

 

[daws101]

funny how the many of the participants of these reports , former NIST investigators and no less than former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board are calling these reports cover-ups

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

you are splitting hairs and playing word games ..if those who where directly involved feel there was a cover up and offer proof in the form of their testimony as to how they where blocked and deterred from fact finding then you have established there is a cover up

wrong again, feeling is not fact or evidence
testimony is only useful when you have hard evidence to support it
there is no proof that any one was blocked from fact finding

sorry but to establish a cover up you need : A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.[2] "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."[1]

In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required. Etymologically, the term comes from Latin con- "with, together", and spirare "to breathe".

you have no hard evidence of the aforementioned

 

[eots]

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

you are splitting hairs and playing word games ..if those who where directly involved feel there was a cover up and offer proof in the form of their testimony as to how they where blocked and deterred from fact finding then you have established there is a cover up

wrong again, feeling is not fact or evidence
testimony is only useful when you have hard evidence to support it
there is no proof that any one was blocked from fact finding

sorry but to establish a cover up you need : A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.[2] "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."[1]

I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”


the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[candycorn]

For some reason that cracks me up.

 

[candycorn]

calling is not the same as proving...a concept that constantly eludes you!

So if a new...real...investigation happens in the near future will you "O.J. Simpson Defense Attorneys" be investigated?

If something is a true story then why does it require full time propaganda defending it?

If there is a new and real investigation will you be investigated?....simply for the fact how you attempt to sway opinions {votes away from} facts?

So if a revolution does occur like I predict, will you be investigated as a propagandist war crimiminal?

you have no proof that your version of events on 911 is true.
you also have no proof that propaganda is being used to defend it .
in reality it's just the opposite ...all info from "truth" sources is propaganda as it is based on a false premise ...just like it was used against the Jews in Germany and Japanese Americans in ww2.
if there is a new investigation, you do realize that twoofers will not be part of it due to bias...
judging from your posts any predictions you make are improbable in the extreme..
about the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a black bear in the same day ..
step out if front of a bus and do us all a favor, you whining neo fascist dick weed!

100% correct. The ironic thing is that the accusations being made of others are the very ones that they are guilty of; lies, obstruction of investigation, disgusting behavior. And in his case; really bad hygiene.

 

[eots]

So if a new...real...investigation happens in the near future will you "O.J. Simpson Defense Attorneys" be investigated?

If something is a true story then why does it require full time propaganda defending it?

If there is a new and real investigation will you be investigated?....simply for the fact how you attempt to sway opinions {votes away from} facts?

So if a revolution does occur like I predict, will you be investigated as a propagandist war crimiminal?

you have no proof that your version of events on 911 is true.
you also have no proof that propaganda is being used to defend it .
in reality it's just the opposite ...all info from "truth" sources is propaganda as it is based on a false premise ...just like it was used against the Jews in Germany and Japanese Americans in ww2.
if there is a new investigation, you do realize that twoofers will not be part of it due to bias...
judging from your posts any predictions you make are improbable in the extreme..
about the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a black bear in the same day ..
step out if front of a bus and do us all a favor, you whining neo fascist dick weed!

100% correct. The ironic thing is that the accusations being made of others are the very ones that they are guilty of; lies, obstruction of investigation, disgusting behavior. And in his case; really bad hygiene.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_urVQRPWU&feature=share]Public Service Announcement: Conspiracy Theorist - YouTube[/ame]

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

For some reason that cracks me up.

Simple jokes tickle simple minds...

 

[x0Maximilian0x]

So if a new...real...investigation happens in the near future will you "O.J. Simpson Defense Attorneys" be investigated?

If something is a true story then why does it require full time propaganda defending it?

If there is a new and real investigation will you be investigated?....simply for the fact how you attempt to sway opinions {votes away from} facts?

So if a revolution does occur like I predict, will you be investigated as a propagandist war crimiminal?

you have no proof that your version of events on 911 is true.
you also have no proof that propaganda is being used to defend it .
in reality it's just the opposite ...all info from "truth" sources is propaganda as it is based on a false premise ...just like it was used against the Jews in Germany and Japanese Americans in ww2.
if there is a new investigation, you do realize that twoofers will not be part of it due to bias...
judging from your posts any predictions you make are improbable in the extreme..
about the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a black bear in the same day ..
step out if front of a bus and do us all a favor, you whining neo fascist dick weed!

100% correct. The ironic thing is that the accusations being made of others are the very ones that they are guilty of; lies, obstruction of investigation, disgusting behavior. And in his case; really bad hygiene.

Bad hygiene? Then why is it when I go out on a night on the town so many beautiful ladies are attracted to me and feel compelled to press their llips against mine?