Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!

[Mr. Jones]

BTW, you haven't read or researched enough on this topic to know shit, and your threads and responses are proof.

Actually none of you have researched anything. You just copy and paste existing stuff over and over and never do anything yourselves. I would suggest taking your own advice.

And I'm offering my representation, for a modest contingency fee, to any CT who has the cajones to step forward and take their "facts" to a court of law.

Don't hold your breath.

And just have you done to dispel what is being said against the OCT, and NIST? Looks like nothing at all.
We put up people, science and physics, links, and easily understood videos that better illustrate why NIST and the OCT is bogus, and you do nothing except deny their existence.
You produce nothing at all.

 

[daws101]

When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.

So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks.

That is precisely why these whistleblowers are not lauded by legislators or trumpeted by the media, but actively suppressed by government officials and the corporate media alike. These courageous insiders have been sidelined, gagged, hounded from their positions and ignored to the point where their stories are virtually unknown among the general public. And that is exactly why it is vital for the alternative media to make these stories known by bypassing the filters and control of the establishment media.

In an effort to draw more attention to the critical issues and troubling questions raised by the testimony of these insiders, The Corbett Report has just released a documentary exploration of key government and corporate whistleblowers, including a discussion of whistleblower protection and what the public can do to facilitate a wider distribution and awareness of this information. Download an mp3 audio file of the documentary or listen to it in the player below:

A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers | The Corbett Report

I think the point you are missing is that no one directly involved has come forward to say so. Not people who have suspicions, who think they may have evidence someone else did something.

The idea is that a conspiracy of this proportion would take so many people to make work, it's nearly inevitable that some would end up telling the story of their part in it either out of a sense of guilt, or in search of fame, or looking for a payday. Or, barring a coming forward account, someone looking into the events would find a person directly involved and either pressure them into telling their story or perhaps trick their way into a reveal.

Posting a bunch of people who were NOT involved in the conspiracy does not address this point at all.

So these people are not considered as "coming forward" to you? What the fuck do you want? The people who were walking in and out of the towers? Forget about that.
What is truly shameful is that you people expect the entity that had a hand in this conspiracy to implicate themselves, and that is just insane to think will ever happen.
It telling that the ones who have come forward are the ones being persecuted, or die in mysterious ways and circumstances.
The fact remains that something other then office fires brought down the buildings, so that in itself, and no denying it, has conspiracy all over it.

So by you standard if the people that have the most to lose don't confess, buildings can come exploding down with FF acceleration Got it.

[ame=http://youtu.be/0jTHNBKjMBU]Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes - Opening themes. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

I think the point you are missing is that no one directly involved has come forward to say so. Not people who have suspicions, who think they may have evidence someone else did something.

The idea is that a conspiracy of this proportion would take so many people to make work, it's nearly inevitable that some would end up telling the story of their part in it either out of a sense of guilt, or in search of fame, or looking for a payday. Or, barring a coming forward account, someone looking into the events would find a person directly involved and either pressure them into telling their story or perhaps trick their way into a reveal.

Posting a bunch of people who were NOT involved in the conspiracy does not address this point at all.

So these people are not considered as "coming forward" to you? What the fuck do you want? The people who were walking in and out of the towers? Forget about that.
What is truly shameful is that you people expect the entity that had a hand in this conspiracy to implicate themselves, and that is just insane to think will ever happen.
It telling that the ones who have come forward are the ones being persecuted, or die in mysterious ways and circumstances.
The fact remains that something other then office fires brought down the buildings, so that in itself, and no denying it, has conspiracy all over it.

So by you standard if the people that have the most to lose don't confess, buildings can come exploding down with FF acceleration Got it.

No nitwit, these people are not considered 'directly involved'. As I said, I think the point of the too many people involved argument is that SOMEONE who was part of such a large conspiracy, involving thousands of people directly, would have eventually spilled the beans about their involvement.

I don't expect 'the entity' that had a hand to come forward. I do, however, expect that the government is still made up of individual human beings. There is no hive mind, the entirety of the US government is not having their thoughts controlled by some evil cabal, whatever reasoning you may use to assume that everyone in government is part of the same agenda and never disagrees. So if it took enough people to pull this off, human nature seems to favor some of them talking.

Oh, and clearly, there are many people who can and do deny that something other than fires brought down the building.

 

[daws101]

No asshole an epic Dodge is a 1969 Charger....what I posted is a response to a post that directly contradicts what you and the OP have said.
This is how a message board works fuckball....Now it is your turn to dispute the information that is I posted with something relevant to the topic.
What's the matter? Here is a link with information to just a few of the people who have come forward regarding 9-11 and the subsequent wars it was used to initiate.....I could post the many court cases regarding 9-11 that were ignored as well, but you assholes just ignore the evidence that you asked for and that we post.

CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11. - YouTube

Susan Lindauer


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Susan Lindauer


Born
17 July 1963 (age 49)

Occupation
Author, journalist, activist

Parents
John Howard Lindauer
Jackie Lindauer (1932–1992)

Relatives
Andrew Card (second cousin)

Susan Lindauer (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist and antiwar activist.

In 2003 she was accused of conspiring to act as an unregistered lobbyist for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.[1][2][3] Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings. During her incarceration she won the right to refuse forced antipsychotic medication which the United States Department of Justice claimed would render her competent to stand trial.[4][5] She was released in 2006 and all charges were dropped in 2009.[6]



Lindauer is the daughter of John Howard Lindauer II, the newspaper publisher and former Republican nominee for Governor of Alaska.[6][7] Her mother was Jackie Lindauer (1932–1992) who died of cancer in 1992. In 1995 her father married Dorothy Oremus, a Chicago attorney who along with other members of her family owned the largest cement company in the Midwest.[7]

Lindauer is also a second cousin of former White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card.[8]

Education and employment

Lindauer attended East Anchorage High School in Anchorage, Alaska, where she was an honor student and was in school plays.[9] She graduated from Smith College in 1985. She earned a masters degree in public policy from the London School of Economics.[2] She worked as a temporary reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for 13 weeks in 1987, and as an editorial writer at the The Everett Herald in Everett, Washington in 1989. She then was a reporter and researcher at U.S. News & World Report in 1990 and 1991.[7][9][10][11]

She then worked for Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon (1993) and then Representative Ron Wyden, D-Oregon (1994) before joining the office of Senator Carol Moseley Braun, D-Illinois, where she worked as a press secretary and speech writer.[7][10] In 2003 she was working for Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-California.[12]

Other activities prior to arrest

Lindauer claims she was conducting peace negotiations with representatives of Muslim countries (including Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, and Yemen) in New York. According to transcripts Lindauer presented to the New York Times in 2004, these included meetings with Iraqi Muthanna al-Hanooti, another peace activist later accused of spying. Lindauer also says that the U.S. intelligence community was aware of these meetings and monitoring her.[2] (She also discussed them directly in communications with Card.)[13]

Richard Fuisz met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from her office after September 11, 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious".[2] Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.[14]

[edit] Arrest

On January 8, 2003, she delivered a letter to Andrew Card. In her letter, she urged Card to intercede with President George W. Bush to not invade Iraq, and offered to act as a back channel in negotiations. Andrew Card is her second cousin. Her first politically related contact with former Chief of Staff was around 2001.[2]

On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested in Takoma Park, Maryland by five agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[2] She was taken to the FBI office in Baltimore. Outside of this office, she told WBAL-TV: "I'm an antiwar activist and I'm innocent. I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everybody else said it was impossible."[15] Lindauer later said she was charged under the PATRIOT Act.[16]

Lindauer was charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government". The indictment alleged that she accepted US$10,000 from the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 2002. Lindauer denied receiving the money, but confirmed taking a trip to Baghdad.[2] Lindauer was also accused of meeting with an FBI agent posing as a Libyan, with whom she spoke about the "need for plans and foreign resources to support resistance groups operating in Iraq."[12] Lindauer says she came to this meeting because of her interest in filing a war crimes suit against the U.S. and U.K. governments.[2]

Congresswoman Lofgren released a statement saying she was "shocked" by the arrest, that she had no evidence of illicit activities by Lindauer, and that she would cooperate with the investigation.[12] Robert Precht, Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, said the charges were "weak" and that Lindauer was more likely to be a "misguided peacenik".[17]

[edit] Incarceration and legal action

She was released on bond on March 13, 2004, to attend an arraignment the following week.[3] Sanford Talkin of New York was appointed by the court as Lindauer's lawyer.[13]

In 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. At Carswell She was then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[18] In 2006, she was released from prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[6][18] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[1] On the question of Lindauer's sanity, Richard Fuisz commented in 2004: "She's daft enough that we could be sitting here, like we are now, and she might see a parrot fly in the window, flap its wings and land right here on the table. But she's also smart enough not to necessarily say anything about it."[2]

At a hearing in July 2008, Lindauer told reporters that she had been a CIA asset, and said she had "been hung out to dry and scapegoated".[14]

In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial—despite Lindauer's insistence to the contrary.[7][19] Preska ruled that Lindauer's belief in her connection to the intelligence community was evidence of her insanity.[20]

On January 16, 2009, the government decided to not continue with the prosecution saying "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[6][21]

Antipsychiatrist Thomas Szasz criticized the government's treatment of Lindauer and referred to her captors as "torturers".[22]

[edit] Book and subsequent claims

Lindauer has written a self-published book about her experience, Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.[23] Lindauer claims that for a number of years she had worked for the CIA and DIA undertaking communications with the Iraqi government, serving as a back-channel in negotiations. She started making visits to the Libyan mission at the United Nations in 1995,[10] lasting until 2001, some of the meetings were talks with Iraqi Intelligence Service officials at the United Nations.[2]
Susan Lindauer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yep that's what I'd call a credible witness!

Yes she is, but your standards are in line with what the gov. says. You have no concept that the entity and people within it are in charge of what and who is allowed as evidence.
The fact remains, that there is a conspiracy involving US government officials and outside states.
Buildings do not explode and come crashing down at FF acceleration while hurling tons of steel without something man made helping them along.
And the fact there are people who have come forward but because the US gubmint says they are bad people, they don't count? Well what the fuck did you expect you dimwitted asshole?

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'll take you up on your offer SAYIT. PM me details of who you are and what Law Firm you work for and which State Bar you have passed.

 

[Mr. Jones]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

 

[daws101]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

no need, it's been ask and answered
besides, it's your claim that by some unknown means the laws of physics were altered and yet when asked to provide some precedence or proof that the laws could be broken you fail
and dodge?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I think the point you are missing is that no one directly involved has come forward to say so. Not people who have suspicions, who think they may have evidence someone else did something.

The idea is that a conspiracy of this proportion would take so many people to make work, it's nearly inevitable that some would end up telling the story of their part in it either out of a sense of guilt, or in search of fame, or looking for a payday. Or, barring a coming forward account, someone looking into the events would find a person directly involved and either pressure them into telling their story or perhaps trick their way into a reveal.

Posting a bunch of people who were NOT involved in the conspiracy does not address this point at all.

So these people are not considered as "coming forward" to you? What the fuck do you want? The people who were walking in and out of the towers? Forget about that.
What is truly shameful is that you people expect the entity that had a hand in this conspiracy to implicate themselves, and that is just insane to think will ever happen.
It telling that the ones who have come forward are the ones being persecuted, or die in mysterious ways and circumstances.
The fact remains that something other then office fires brought down the buildings, so that in itself, and no denying it, has conspiracy all over it.

So by you standard if the people that have the most to lose don't confess, buildings can come exploding down with FF acceleration Got it.

No nitwit, these people are not considered 'directly involved'. As I said, I think the point of the too many people involved argument is that SOMEONE who was part of such a large conspiracy, involving thousands of people directly, would have eventually spilled the beans about their involvement.

What do you consider "directly involved"? And...why do you think they would just come forward and "spill the beans" as you would say? What possible incentive would they have, and what makes you think there are any "directly involved" persons still around to admit to say...rigging the buildings?

I don't expect 'the entity' that had a hand to come forward. I do, however, expect that the government is still made up of individual human beings. There is no hive mind, the entirety of the US government is not having their thoughts controlled by some evil cabal, whatever reasoning you may use to assume that everyone in government is part of the same agenda and never disagrees. So if it took enough people to pull this off, human nature seems to favor some of them talking.

Then you would agree that it would not take the entire US governments involvement, which is what I have been saying repeatedly and that something of this clandestine and sensitive nature would be highly compartmentalized.
Also you are dismissing the ones that have come forward to say what they have to say concerning 9-11 and the wars and the bogus intell that was used to initiate them, because
the PTB have deemed them unfit, mentally disturbed or have been marginalized and ridiculed.
Haven't you noticed the laws that are being passed under our noses deal with discouraging people from coming forward, using "national security" and "terrorist activities" etc?? It is dangerous to do this, but people do it anyway and they don't kill off all of them or lock everyone of them up as that would be extremely obvious, so they simply lock them up, terrify them and try to make them take psychotropic drugs like Susan Lindauer...Of course they are "still individual human beings" but they have seen the fate of others who step on too many toes. You apparently haven't.

You haven't been paying attention to them, and it is evident that you consider their marginalization, and blacklisting labels credible, but you don't consider the source where that is emanating from at all, and what the ramifications would be if they were treated as viable.

Oh, and clearly, there are many people who can and do deny that something other than fires brought down the building.

Of course we all know this, there is scientific and physics evidence that back them up to do so, while NIST on the other hand has been caught using pseudoscience, and distorted data to come to their conclusion, and hiding their work from replication. This is the main reason to reject the NIST report.

Again, the fact that the WTC were destroyed by the assistance of something other then planes and office fires, proves that there is a conspiracy, and when the 9-11 commission panelists claim that they were hampered and therefore they don't know the truth, and the fact that NIST has been caught lying, distorting and hiding their data, smacks of a massive cover up by people who have a shitload of pull and authority, and one can speculate what incentives were used and are still in place to keep this a hands off topic.

You ignore the scientific evidence as well as the physics that prove the impossibility of the WTC destruction, and base you staunch beliefs on the most specious of arguments, that are historically wrong. One guy says that the WTC were indeed destroyed the way NIST explained because insurance fraud was successful, and now you claim the same old BS that someone would have talked, and when we post those links to people who have talked
you ignore them the same way you ignore the basic science and physics of the argument, only because those with the authority to do so...have?

We go beyond the NIST claims, we post whistle blowers, we post the lies and distortions and you respond with sorry lame reasons that do nothing to advance your beliefs nor dispel ours.
Great, you believe the BS you are told because of insurance fraud, and because your studies of human nature tell you that surly someone ELSE would have talked LOL!
Wow that's just fucking brilliant, how about you try to explain what the fuss is that generated the objections to the OCT in the first place, that being that the WTC could have not physically been exploded by kerosene, and that the WTC 7 could not have experienced FF for 8 stories due to "thermal expansion" of steel that had shear studs that would have made that theory impossible..???

What do you suppose would happen if the truth ever got out? Would their be hell to pay, and a massive upheaval in this nation? In the world? Of course the lid must be kept tightly closed and any mention of it ridiculed and marginalized, as a wild conspiracy theory.
The ramifications would be global.

 

[Mr. Jones]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible.

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

YOU HAVE PURPOSEFULLY MISUSED THE QUOTE FUNCTION AGAIN AND REPLACED WHAT I SAID WITH YOURS
IF YOU CAN'T EVEN USE THE FORUM TOOLS PROPERLY I SUGGEST YOU HAVE AN ADULT HELP YOU

no need, it's been ask and answered

Now this is a bonafide "DODGE"!!
You certainly haven't answered anything regarding this and probably never will.
We've explained our positions, and provided the data to back them up, and all your sorry ass does is DODGE!!

besides, it's your claim that by some unknown means the laws of physics were altered and yet when asked to provide some precedence or proof that the laws could be broken you fail
and dodge?

No asshole it is your adherence to the NIST report that does not physically explain the WTC destruction, that is suggestive of YOU believing the laws of physics did not apply 0n 9-11, and I've asked you to explain how that could be numerous times in this forum and all we get is the epic DODGE we witnessed above.
You are a waste of time, as you never post anything but the sorry shit above.

Study thermal expansion and shear studs and get back to me, or are you too busy playing video games?

 

[Mr. Jones]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible.

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

no need, it's been ask and answered
besides, it's your claim that by some unknown means the laws of physics were altered and yet when asked to provide some precedence or proof that the laws could be broken you fail
and dodge?[/QUOTE]

YOU'VE ONCE AGAIN MISUSED THE QUOTE FUNCTION, AS I DI NOT SAY WHAT YOU HAVE QUOTED ME AS SAYING.

 

[Mr. Jones]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible.

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

YOU HAVE PURPOSEFULLY MISUSED THE QUOTE FUNCTION AGAIN.

no need, it's been ask and answered
besides, it's your claim that by some unknown means the laws of physics were altered and yet when asked to provide some precedence or proof that the laws could be broken you fail
and dodge?[/QUOTE]

 

[Montrovant]

So these people are not considered as "coming forward" to you? What the fuck do you want? The people who were walking in and out of the towers? Forget about that.
What is truly shameful is that you people expect the entity that had a hand in this conspiracy to implicate themselves, and that is just insane to think will ever happen.
It telling that the ones who have come forward are the ones being persecuted, or die in mysterious ways and circumstances.
The fact remains that something other then office fires brought down the buildings, so that in itself, and no denying it, has conspiracy all over it.

So by you standard if the people that have the most to lose don't confess, buildings can come exploding down with FF acceleration Got it.

What do you consider "directly involved"? And...why do you think they would just come forward and "spill the beans" as you would say? What possible incentive would they have, and what makes you think there are any "directly involved" persons still around to admit to say...rigging the buildings?
Then you would agree that it would not take the entire US governments involvement, which is what I have been saying repeatedly and that something of this clandestine and sensitive nature would be highly compartmentalized.
Also you are dismissing the ones that have come forward to say what they have to say concerning 9-11 and the wars and the bogus intell that was used to initiate them, because
the PTB have deemed them unfit, mentally disturbed or have been marginalized and ridiculed.
Haven't you noticed the laws that are being passed under our noses deal with discouraging people from coming forward, using "national security" and "terrorist activities" etc?? It is dangerous to do this, but people do it anyway and they don't kill off all of them or lock everyone of them up as that would be extremely obvious, so they simply lock them up, terrify them and try to make them take psychotropic drugs like Susan Lindauer...Of course they are "still individual human beings" but they have seen the fate of others who step on too many toes. You apparently haven't.

You haven't been paying attention to them, and it is evident that you consider their marginalization, and blacklisting labels credible, but you don't consider the source where that is emanating from at all, and what the ramifications would be if they were treated as viable.

Oh, and clearly, there are many people who can and do deny that something other than fires brought down the building.

Of course we all know this, there is scientific and physics evidence that back them up to do so, while NIST on the other hand has been caught using pseudoscience, and distorted data to come to their conclusion, and hiding their work from replication. This is the main reason to reject the NIST report.

Again, the fact that the WTC were destroyed by the assistance of something other then planes and office fires, proves that there is a conspiracy, and when the 9-11 commission panelists claim that they were hampered and therefore they don't know the truth, and the fact that NIST has been caught lying, distorting and hiding their data, smacks of a massive cover up by people who have a shitload of pull and authority, and one can speculate what incentives were used and are still in place to keep this a hands off topic.

You ignore the scientific evidence as well as the physics that prove the impossibility of the WTC destruction, and base you staunch beliefs on the most specious of arguments, that are historically wrong. One guy says that the WTC were indeed destroyed the way NIST explained because insurance fraud was successful, and now you claim the same old BS that someone would have talked, and when we post those links to people who have talked
you ignore them the same way you ignore the basic science and physics of the argument, only because those with the authority to do so...have?

We go beyond the NIST claims, we post whistle blowers, we post the lies and distortions and you respond with sorry lame reasons that do nothing to advance your beliefs nor dispel ours.
Great, you believe the BS you are told because of insurance fraud, and because your studies of human nature tell you that surly someone ELSE would have talked LOL!
Wow that's just fucking brilliant, how about you try to explain what the fuss is that generated the objections to the OCT in the first place, that being that the WTC could have not physically been exploded by kerosene, and that the WTC 7 could not have experienced FF for 8 stories due to "thermal expansion" of steel that had shear studs that would have made that theory impossible..???

What do you suppose would happen if the truth ever got out? Would their be hell to pay, and a massive upheaval in this nation? In the world? Of course the lid must be kept tightly closed and any mention of it ridiculed and marginalized, as a wild conspiracy theory.
The ramifications would be global.

I'm not ignoring evidence, you don't even know what my opinions on 9/11 are. You simply seem to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with what you say must agree with the government's report of the events.

More, you continually harp on the 'facts' that undeniably prove that the government report was wrong. From what I've gathered in these types of discussions and reading some links, watching a video or three, it is conclusions based on oftentimes controversial data that you have, not incontrovertible laws of physics. The 9/11 truth movement (if it fits that description) is not some leviathan popular movement, filled with the majority of relevant scientists. If these are such obvious, undeniable facts, why are so few people up in arms that we've been lied to about the biggest event in the past few decades of US history?

As far as what constitutes direct involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy, that would be someone that either helped plan or execute the various parts of the events. Someone who helped apply the explosives to whichever buildings are supposed to have been brought down with controlled demo. Whoever was involved in hiding evidence after the event happened. Whoever gave orders for the explosives to be set, the evidence to be removed, the media to be lied to, it's dependent on what your personal idea is about what happened. It's hard to be TOO specific when there are so many different CT's about the day floating around.

As to what incentive someone would have to talk, I already covered that. Guilt, fame, money, anger at the government, there are plenty of reasons someone would come forward and say, 'We did it! I was part of it!'. Even barring that, someone else could be investigating the events and pressure that sort of confession from someone else. Why do any criminals discuss their crimes? It's a good way to get caught, but they still do it.

You continue to misread, misinterpret, misrepresent my posts. You assume I am saying things I have not, you read more into what I post than what is there. You talk about my 'staunch beliefs' when you don't actually know what I believe. You seem incapable of accepting there is anything other than fervent government supporters and 9/11 truthers. Well, have fun with your black and white world of fighting the evils only a select few can see. It's lucky for the rest of us that you have been able to pierce the veil of secrecy!

 

[daws101]

so much for attempting to communicate in a non paranoid manner .
btw the free fall you yammer so much about was a mere 2.5 sec, no " special" tactics or weapons required.. it's just plain old physics ,the stuff you wish were altered that day.
just to state the obvious she's a nut case just like you.
so it's no surprise you'd want her to be credible.

Perhaps you would explain the "simple physics" then then explains how tons of steel just happened to move out of the way to allow for the 2.25 secs. of freefall, that consisted of 8 fucking stories, NIST hasn't, in fact they denied it even happened, then miraculously they said it did with no explanation, just like they denied the existence of the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008, even though they mentioned them in abundance in 2005.
Explain that, you believe it so much, you surly have something that substantiates what you believe don't you? Oh wait here comes another cut and paste from the discredited NIST report, that is what is in dispute in the first place....

YOU HAVE PURPOSEFULLY MISUSED THE QUOTE FUNCTION AGAIN.

no need, it's been ask and answered
besides, it's your claim that by some unknown means the laws of physics were altered and yet when asked to provide some precedence or proof that the laws could be broken you fail
and dodge?

[/QUOTE]wrong as always, look at your answer to that post it's you who fucked up but you'll never admit it! lol!

 

[Politico]

BTW, you haven't read or researched enough on this topic to know shit, and your threads and responses are proof.

Actually none of you have researched anything. You just copy and paste existing stuff over and over and never do anything yourselves. I would suggest taking your own advice.

And I'm offering my representation, for a modest contingency fee, to any CT who has the cajones to step forward and take their "facts" to a court of law.

Don't hold your breath.

And just have you done to dispel what is being said against the OCT, and NIST? Looks like nothing at all.

We put up people, science and physics, links, and easily understood videos that better illustrate why NIST and the OCT is bogus, and you do nothing except deny their existence.
You produce nothing at all.

And this is how the conspiratists roll. Insults and attacks. I don't have to put up proof because I am not making the claims. And no you don't put up anything as I said. You put up other people's stuff. None of it proves anything but that's not the point. How about you or anyone else here for that matter show us your research and interviews on the ground. Not something copied from the comfort of your keyboards.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I wanted to take SAYIT up on his offer so I asked him to PM me who he is, what Law Firm he works for and what State Bar Exam he has passed and he just told me he's "very retired" and that I should re-read his offer.

Translation: He's full of sh*t. What a surprise huh?

 

[SAYIT]

Actually none of you have researched anything. You just copy and paste existing stuff over and over and never do anything yourselves. I would suggest taking your own advice.



Don't hold your breath.

And just have you done to dispel what is being said against the OCT, and NIST? Looks like nothing at all.

We put up people, science and physics, links, and easily understood videos that better illustrate why NIST and the OCT is bogus, and you do nothing except deny their existence.
You produce nothing at all.

And this is how the conspiratists roll. Insults and attacks. I don't have to put up proof because I a am not making the claims. And no you don't put up anything as I said. You put up other people's stuff. None of it proves anything but that's not the point. How about you or anyone else here for that matter show us your research and interviews on the ground. Not something copied from the comfort of your keyboards.

You have succinctly described the loony tunes world of the 9/11 CT. They and only they know anything and anyone who requires real facts or rational thinking of them is a "paid troll" or a blind sheep.
Thank you.

 

[SAYIT]

What do you consider "directly involved"? And...why do you think they would just come forward and "spill the beans" as you would say? What possible incentive would they have, and what makes you think there are any "directly involved" persons still around to admit to say...rigging the buildings?
Then you would agree that it would not take the entire US governments involvement, which is what I have been saying repeatedly and that something of this clandestine and sensitive nature would be highly compartmentalized.
Also you are dismissing the ones that have come forward to say what they have to say concerning 9-11 and the wars and the bogus intell that was used to initiate them, because
the PTB have deemed them unfit, mentally disturbed or have been marginalized and ridiculed.
Haven't you noticed the laws that are being passed under our noses deal with discouraging people from coming forward, using "national security" and "terrorist activities" etc?? It is dangerous to do this, but people do it anyway and they don't kill off all of them or lock everyone of them up as that would be extremely obvious, so they simply lock them up, terrify them and try to make them take psychotropic drugs like Susan Lindauer...Of course they are "still individual human beings" but they have seen the fate of others who step on too many toes. You apparently haven't.

You haven't been paying attention to them, and it is evident that you consider their marginalization, and blacklisting labels credible, but you don't consider the source where that is emanating from at all, and what the ramifications would be if they were treated as viable.

Of course we all know this, there is scientific and physics evidence that back them up to do so, while NIST on the other hand has been caught using pseudoscience, and distorted data to come to their conclusion, and hiding their work from replication. This is the main reason to reject the NIST report.

Again, the fact that the WTC were destroyed by the assistance of something other then planes and office fires, proves that there is a conspiracy, and when the 9-11 commission panelists claim that they were hampered and therefore they don't know the truth, and the fact that NIST has been caught lying, distorting and hiding their data, smacks of a massive cover up by people who have a shitload of pull and authority, and one can speculate what incentives were used and are still in place to keep this a hands off topic.

You ignore the scientific evidence as well as the physics that prove the impossibility of the WTC destruction, and base you staunch beliefs on the most specious of arguments, that are historically wrong. One guy says that the WTC were indeed destroyed the way NIST explained because insurance fraud was successful, and now you claim the same old BS that someone would have talked, and when we post those links to people who have talked
you ignore them the same way you ignore the basic science and physics of the argument, only because those with the authority to do so...have?

We go beyond the NIST claims, we post whistle blowers, we post the lies and distortions and you respond with sorry lame reasons that do nothing to advance your beliefs nor dispel ours.
Great, you believe the BS you are told because of insurance fraud, and because your studies of human nature tell you that surly someone ELSE would have talked LOL!
Wow that's just fucking brilliant, how about you try to explain what the fuss is that generated the objections to the OCT in the first place, that being that the WTC could have not physically been exploded by kerosene, and that the WTC 7 could not have experienced FF for 8 stories due to "thermal expansion" of steel that had shear studs that would have made that theory impossible..???

What do you suppose would happen if the truth ever got out? Would their be hell to pay, and a massive upheaval in this nation? In the world? Of course the lid must be kept tightly closed and any mention of it ridiculed and marginalized, as a wild conspiracy theory.
The ramifications would be global.

I'm not ignoring evidence, you don't even know what my opinions on 9/11 are. You simply seem to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with what you say must agree with the government's report of the events.

More, you continually harp on the 'facts' that undeniably prove that the government report was wrong. From what I've gathered in these types of discussions and reading some links, watching a video or three, it is conclusions based on oftentimes controversial data that you have, not incontrovertible laws of physics. The 9/11 truth movement (if it fits that description) is not some leviathan popular movement, filled with the majority of relevant scientists. If these are such obvious, undeniable facts, why are so few people up in arms that we've been lied to about the biggest event in the past few decades of US history?

As far as what constitutes direct involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy, that would be someone that either helped plan or execute the various parts of the events. Someone who helped apply the explosives to whichever buildings are supposed to have been brought down with controlled demo. Whoever was involved in hiding evidence after the event happened. Whoever gave orders for the explosives to be set, the evidence to be removed, the media to be lied to, it's dependent on what your personal idea is about what happened. It's hard to be TOO specific when there are so many different CT's about the day floating around.

As to what incentive someone would have to talk, I already covered that. Guilt, fame, money, anger at the government, there are plenty of reasons someone would come forward and say, 'We did it! I was part of it!'. Even barring that, someone else could be investigating the events and pressure that sort of confession from someone else. Why do any criminals discuss their crimes? It's a good way to get caught, but they still do it.

You continue to misread, misinterpret, misrepresent my posts. You assume I am saying things I have not, you read more into what I post than what is there. You talk about my 'staunch beliefs' when you don't actually know what I believe. You seem incapable of accepting there is anything other than fervent government supporters and 9/11 truthers. Well, have fun with your black and white world of fighting the evils only a select few can see. It's lucky for the rest of us that you have been able to pierce the veil of secrecy!

Well said. You have the patience of Job. Your adversary must assume much because he actually knows so little.

 

[SAYIT]

No asshole an epic Dodge is a 1969 Charger....what I posted is a response to a post that directly contradicts what you and the OP have said.
This is how a message board works fuckball....Now it is your turn to dispute the information that is I posted with something relevant to the topic.
What's the matter? Here is a link with information to just a few of the people who have come forward regarding 9-11 and the subsequent wars it was used to initiate.....I could post the many court cases regarding 9-11 that were ignored as well, but you assholes just ignore the evidence that you asked for and that we post.

CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11. - YouTube

Susan Lindauer


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Susan Lindauer


Born
17 July 1963 (age 49)

Occupation
Author, journalist, activist

Parents
John Howard Lindauer
Jackie Lindauer (1932–1992)

Relatives
Andrew Card (second cousin)

Susan Lindauer (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist and antiwar activist.

In 2003 she was accused of conspiring to act as an unregistered lobbyist for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.[1][2][3] Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings. During her incarceration she won the right to refuse forced antipsychotic medication which the United States Department of Justice claimed would render her competent to stand trial.[4][5] She was released in 2006 and all charges were dropped in 2009.[6]



Lindauer is the daughter of John Howard Lindauer II, the newspaper publisher and former Republican nominee for Governor of Alaska.[6][7] Her mother was Jackie Lindauer (1932–1992) who died of cancer in 1992. In 1995 her father married Dorothy Oremus, a Chicago attorney who along with other members of her family owned the largest cement company in the Midwest.[7]

Lindauer is also a second cousin of former White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card.[8]

Education and employment

Lindauer attended East Anchorage High School in Anchorage, Alaska, where she was an honor student and was in school plays.[9] She graduated from Smith College in 1985. She earned a masters degree in public policy from the London School of Economics.[2] She worked as a temporary reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for 13 weeks in 1987, and as an editorial writer at the The Everett Herald in Everett, Washington in 1989. She then was a reporter and researcher at U.S. News & World Report in 1990 and 1991.[7][9][10][11]

She then worked for Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon (1993) and then Representative Ron Wyden, D-Oregon (1994) before joining the office of Senator Carol Moseley Braun, D-Illinois, where she worked as a press secretary and speech writer.[7][10] In 2003 she was working for Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-California.[12]

Other activities prior to arrest

Lindauer claims she was conducting peace negotiations with representatives of Muslim countries (including Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, and Yemen) in New York. According to transcripts Lindauer presented to the New York Times in 2004, these included meetings with Iraqi Muthanna al-Hanooti, another peace activist later accused of spying. Lindauer also says that the U.S. intelligence community was aware of these meetings and monitoring her.[2] (She also discussed them directly in communications with Card.)[13]

Richard Fuisz met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from her office after September 11, 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious".[2] Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.[14]

[edit] Arrest

On January 8, 2003, she delivered a letter to Andrew Card. In her letter, she urged Card to intercede with President George W. Bush to not invade Iraq, and offered to act as a back channel in negotiations. Andrew Card is her second cousin. Her first politically related contact with former Chief of Staff was around 2001.[2]

On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested in Takoma Park, Maryland by five agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[2] She was taken to the FBI office in Baltimore. Outside of this office, she told WBAL-TV: "I'm an antiwar activist and I'm innocent. I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everybody else said it was impossible."[15] Lindauer later said she was charged under the PATRIOT Act.[16]

Lindauer was charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government". The indictment alleged that she accepted US$10,000 from the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 2002. Lindauer denied receiving the money, but confirmed taking a trip to Baghdad.[2] Lindauer was also accused of meeting with an FBI agent posing as a Libyan, with whom she spoke about the "need for plans and foreign resources to support resistance groups operating in Iraq."[12] Lindauer says she came to this meeting because of her interest in filing a war crimes suit against the U.S. and U.K. governments.[2]

Congresswoman Lofgren released a statement saying she was "shocked" by the arrest, that she had no evidence of illicit activities by Lindauer, and that she would cooperate with the investigation.[12] Robert Precht, Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, said the charges were "weak" and that Lindauer was more likely to be a "misguided peacenik".[17]

[edit] Incarceration and legal action

She was released on bond on March 13, 2004, to attend an arraignment the following week.[3] Sanford Talkin of New York was appointed by the court as Lindauer's lawyer.[13]

In 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. At Carswell She was then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[18] In 2006, she was released from prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[6][18] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[1] On the question of Lindauer's sanity, Richard Fuisz commented in 2004: "She's daft enough that we could be sitting here, like we are now, and she might see a parrot fly in the window, flap its wings and land right here on the table. But she's also smart enough not to necessarily say anything about it."[2]

At a hearing in July 2008, Lindauer told reporters that she had been a CIA asset, and said she had "been hung out to dry and scapegoated".[14]

In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial—despite Lindauer's insistence to the contrary.[7][19] Preska ruled that Lindauer's belief in her connection to the intelligence community was evidence of her insanity.[20]

On January 16, 2009, the government decided to not continue with the prosecution saying "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[6][21]

Antipsychiatrist Thomas Szasz criticized the government's treatment of Lindauer and referred to her captors as "torturers".[22]

[edit] Book and subsequent claims

Lindauer has written a self-published book about her experience, Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.[23] Lindauer claims that for a number of years she had worked for the CIA and DIA undertaking communications with the Iraqi government, serving as a back-channel in negotiations. She started making visits to the Libyan mission at the United Nations in 1995,[10] lasting until 2001, some of the meetings were talks with Iraqi Intelligence Service officials at the United Nations.[2]
Susan Lindauer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yep that's what I'd call a credible witness!

Yes she is, but your standards are in line with what the gov. says.:

It is not surprising that one such as you would consider Lindauer "credible" but Judge Mukasey correctly ruled that she "was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial." He also noted "the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a lengthy delusional history"
Typical CT "credible" witness.

 

[SAYIT]

I wanted to take SAYIT up on his offer so I asked him to PM me who he is, what Law Firm he works for and what State Bar Exam he has passed and he just told me he's "very retired" and that I should re-read his offer.

Translation: He's full of sh*t. What a surprise huh?

One need not be a practicing attorney to approach the insurers and negotiate our share of the large cash recovery you and your fellow CTs will be winning on their behalf. Hell, even you could do it (but I could do it better) so stop with the tap-dancing and get your case in order, Princess. We could both use the money, right? Note: I'll not be pleading our case in court so you will need to hire a firm that will.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I wanted to take SAYIT up on his offer so I asked him to PM me who he is, what Law Firm he works for and what State Bar Exam he has passed and he just told me he's "very retired" and that I should re-read his offer.

Translation: He's full of sh*t. What a surprise huh?

One need not be a practicing attorney to approach the insurers and negotiate our share of the large cash recovery you and your fellow CTs will be winning on their behalf. Hell, even you could do it (but I could do it better) so stop with the tap-dancing and get your case in order, Princess. We could both use the money, right? Note: I'll not be pleading our case in court so you will need to hire a firm that will.

What a pussy..He was taken up on his offer to represent someone in a vast legal procedure, but admits he isn't even an attorney, and now says one wont be needed? What a douche bag.