Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
in another photo of that exact same thing(but a close up), he calls that very same "sipre" box columnsThe FEMA deception misrepresents elevator guide rail support steel as "core columns". This image shows the vertical sections of steel in question are sometimes connected with "butt plates". A method of joining far too weak for "core columns".
Which explains why no core columns are seen in the core area on 9-11. All the elevator guide rail support steel fell into the core as soon as the the building started going down. We see an empty core.
The steel standing is far too small for "core columns" and, is not in the core. It surrounds the core. It is rebar.
Oh jeez, Tard-El of Krypton is seeing rebar again. Next, he'll predictably start spouting off about his Invisicrete (Accept no substitutes) core.
Hey Tard-El, don't you ever get tired of looking like a fool?
stannrodd
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 209
- 52
- 28
Here's a close up of Chris's Crane platform diagonals .. as we can see they are actually part of the steel core construction and totally isolated from the cranes support tower.
Then we have a fairly clear view at the core at ground level and guess what .. IT'S Steel Chris .. there is no concrete visible .. (invisicrete ?)
But at last we have a concrete core just for Chris .. so he knows what to look for. This is the core for the Freedom tower .. and yes it is concrete. Have a close look folks .. because Chris will no doubt swear black and blue that it's actually steel ..
Show us your core Chris .. c'mon fair is fair. We show ours now you show us yours !!
Stann
yeah, they changed the way of construction because of what the WTC was constructed of
Here's a close up of Chris's Crane platform diagonals .. as we can see they are actually part of the steel core construction and totally isolated from the cranes support tower.
Then we have a fairly clear view at the core at ground level and guess what .. IT'S Steel Chris .. there is no concrete visible .. (invisicrete ?)
But at last we have a concrete core just for Chris .. so he knows what to look for. This is the core for the Freedom tower .. and yes it is concrete. Have a close look folks .. because Chris will no doubt swear black and blue that it's actually steel ..
Show us your core Chris .. c'mon fair is fair. We show ours now you show us yours !!
Stann
but christoFEARa is too ******* delusional to understand
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #1,425
This is the kind of crap the agents put out because they have no image of the supposed steel core column in the core area on 9-11. The steel core columns di not exist.
This is exactly what a concrete tutbular core would look like under the conditions the Towers saw on 9-11
And the engineer of record 2 days after 9-11 identified a concrete core.
Agents are so boring, no evidence, just a bunch of empty text lies.
This is exactly what a concrete tutbular core would look like under the conditions the Towers saw on 9-11
And the engineer of record 2 days after 9-11 identified a concrete core.
September 13, 2001
Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992 identifies a concrete core
Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, of 1992 identifies a concrete core
Agents are so boring, no evidence, just a bunch of empty text lies.
but dipshits like you show photos that show a steel core and claim it is concrete
i remove your photos because anyone that is reading this thread has seen them HUNDREDS of times
and i dont bother to post NEW photos for you because you are too ******* delusional to admit that what the core was was STEEL
**** off dipshit
Liability
Locked Account.
When you REPEAT your already refuted outright lie, CriscoFEARa, you unmitigated scumbag, it only re-establishes that you are NOTHING BUT a liar.
As you already know, one of the engineers, Mr. Robertson, was NOT quoted. There are no quotation marks in the piece you allude to -- at least not at that point. The AUTHOR of the article (i.e., the nominal reporter) attributed something to him which Mr. Robertson has never said and which he has specifically denied, in fact.
A reporter's error does not bind Mr. Robertson, you unmanly dishonest treasonous *****.
Go get a real job and make some effort in your pathetic life to support your own children, you unmanly pathetic weasel scumbag.
All Troofers are dishonest malignant assholes.
Liability
Locked Account.
CriscoFEARa:
May I call you "scumbag?" No, fuckface? Too bad. For, you see, as everyone else can plainly discern, you are a scumbag.
Anyway, to the point. Let's say that a reporter for Time Magazine, N. Honest Reporter, is assigned to cover the story of Conspiracy Nuts. In his piece, he carefully distinguishes between those who consider the possibility of a conspiracy where the actual evidence validly suggests that one may exist and the blithering imbeciles who ignore reality to speculate (baselessly) about all manner of unsupportable, wild-haired, rank fantasies. Since you, CriscoFEARa, are a recognized Conspiracy Nut of the latter variety, N. Honest Reporter decides to be fair and interview you.
In the article, along with some actual quotes of the irrational and ridiculous things you tend to say (quotes which come with actual quotation marks) the Time Magazine reporter makes a boo boo. His editor misses it, too. He attributes to you the contention that All Troofers are Dishonest Scumbags tending to lack gonads, integrity and intelligence.
Now let's get real. This is obviously not what you ever actually said. And N. Honest Reporter isn't lying. He merely made an error.
Since it got reported, however, the fact that it is CLEARLY the reporter's mistake is irrelevant, right? He essentially has YOU admitting that you and id-eots and 9/11Rimjob and Turdball, etc., etc., etc., are all Dishonest Scumbags, you all lack testicles, you are all lacking any integrity and you are all lacking intelligence. Therefore, as per your logic as it relates to the bullshit wrongly attributed to Robertson, you MUST agree that you would be BOUND by that erroneously expressed opinion.
By the way, the letters in this post were all formed with concrete!
May I call you "scumbag?" No, fuckface? Too bad. For, you see, as everyone else can plainly discern, you are a scumbag.
Anyway, to the point. Let's say that a reporter for Time Magazine, N. Honest Reporter, is assigned to cover the story of Conspiracy Nuts. In his piece, he carefully distinguishes between those who consider the possibility of a conspiracy where the actual evidence validly suggests that one may exist and the blithering imbeciles who ignore reality to speculate (baselessly) about all manner of unsupportable, wild-haired, rank fantasies. Since you, CriscoFEARa, are a recognized Conspiracy Nut of the latter variety, N. Honest Reporter decides to be fair and interview you.
In the article, along with some actual quotes of the irrational and ridiculous things you tend to say (quotes which come with actual quotation marks) the Time Magazine reporter makes a boo boo. His editor misses it, too. He attributes to you the contention that All Troofers are Dishonest Scumbags tending to lack gonads, integrity and intelligence.
Now let's get real. This is obviously not what you ever actually said. And N. Honest Reporter isn't lying. He merely made an error.
Since it got reported, however, the fact that it is CLEARLY the reporter's mistake is irrelevant, right? He essentially has YOU admitting that you and id-eots and 9/11Rimjob and Turdball, etc., etc., etc., are all Dishonest Scumbags, you all lack testicles, you are all lacking any integrity and you are all lacking intelligence. Therefore, as per your logic as it relates to the bullshit wrongly attributed to Robertson, you MUST agree that you would be BOUND by that erroneously expressed opinion.
By the way, the letters in this post were all formed with concrete!
Last edited:
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #1,429
Ad hominium designed to compromise information exposing felony and thereby concealing treason is criminal.
The "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" filed after it was learned the court was going to reject its duty and authority to protect the Constitution and try and make it my job in civil court. This was done rather than allowing reciept to a judge more directly and surely.
Pursuant to TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 115, §2382 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2382. Misprision of treason does not state a response is due from the judge concerning the disclosure of treason. However, the form of pleading citizens are forced to take to comply with U.S. Code has mechanisms the courts must respect for citizens to aquire needed opinion. Particuarly in this case.
img]http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/usdc.app.osc.cm10-00040..jpg[/img]
the United States court, disclosure and knowledge of felony and treason pursuant to the law.
MISPRISION OF FELONY: U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4:
‘Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both’.
Section 4 states “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States” such language is clear in that a citizen is allowed and required under law to disclose if such disclosure is “cognizable by a court of the United States”
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR NOT ACCEPTING SUBMITTED COMPLIANCE OF CITIZENS ACTING PURSUANT TO U.S.C. TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1 §4 MISPRISION OF FELONY & CHAPTER 115, §2382. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
Citizens depend on the judges of the United States Courts for competent and prompt action intervening in treason by felony under duly ratified and promulgated statutes, laws limiting conduct.
Citizens Brown and Elton on February 18, 2010 have presented independently verified evidence with facts establishing felony obstruction of justice in 3,000 homicides on September 11, 2001, wherein it is cognizably shown that fraudulent information regarding the fundamental design of the core of the Twin Towers was produced by a federal agency. Another named party, via misprision violating laws, deprived public agencies of vital information for the due process determination of “cause of death”. Another public system of media removed, then re edited a video documentary against the public interest to conceal the true design of the towers. By these acts the fraud of the federal agency was rendered credible ultimately obstructing proper analysis of structural collapse enabling presumption of collapse. That presumption was fraudulently used to justify compromise of the United States Constitution or its laws in misprision of felony, and illegal uses of the United States Military in treason.
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND CAUSE
Consistent with the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” A citizens duty and right to defend the Constitution against treason by their use of laws having no words to “deny or disparage” using the laws as they are obviously intended, U.S.C. TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 1 §4 & CHAPTER 115 §2382, in those sections or codes, compels these citizens with allegiance to the Constitution of United States of America to claim those rights and the court to accept the filed disclosure in the spirit of the law and the Constitution it was created under or show cause for not doing so with appropriate points and authorities.
PRAYER
The Citizens seeking a response to the application for an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for clarification of law in their efforts to comply in good faith with allegiance to the United States in the protection of its Constitution and laws made under it, pray for a decision from the judge of the court showing allegiance to the same.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE:_____________________ ____________________________
Christopher A. Brown
DATE:_____________________ ____________________________
Patricia C. Elton
The "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" filed after it was learned the court was going to reject its duty and authority to protect the Constitution and try and make it my job in civil court. This was done rather than allowing reciept to a judge more directly and surely.
Pursuant to TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 115, §2382 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2382. Misprision of treason does not state a response is due from the judge concerning the disclosure of treason. However, the form of pleading citizens are forced to take to comply with U.S. Code has mechanisms the courts must respect for citizens to aquire needed opinion. Particuarly in this case.
img]http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/usdc.app.osc.cm10-00040..jpg[/img]
the United States court, disclosure and knowledge of felony and treason pursuant to the law.
MISPRISION OF FELONY: U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4:
‘Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both’.
Section 4 states “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States” such language is clear in that a citizen is allowed and required under law to disclose if such disclosure is “cognizable by a court of the United States”
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR NOT ACCEPTING SUBMITTED COMPLIANCE OF CITIZENS ACTING PURSUANT TO U.S.C. TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1 §4 MISPRISION OF FELONY & CHAPTER 115, §2382. MISPRISION OF TREASON.
Citizens depend on the judges of the United States Courts for competent and prompt action intervening in treason by felony under duly ratified and promulgated statutes, laws limiting conduct.
Citizens Brown and Elton on February 18, 2010 have presented independently verified evidence with facts establishing felony obstruction of justice in 3,000 homicides on September 11, 2001, wherein it is cognizably shown that fraudulent information regarding the fundamental design of the core of the Twin Towers was produced by a federal agency. Another named party, via misprision violating laws, deprived public agencies of vital information for the due process determination of “cause of death”. Another public system of media removed, then re edited a video documentary against the public interest to conceal the true design of the towers. By these acts the fraud of the federal agency was rendered credible ultimately obstructing proper analysis of structural collapse enabling presumption of collapse. That presumption was fraudulently used to justify compromise of the United States Constitution or its laws in misprision of felony, and illegal uses of the United States Military in treason.
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND CAUSE
Consistent with the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” A citizens duty and right to defend the Constitution against treason by their use of laws having no words to “deny or disparage” using the laws as they are obviously intended, U.S.C. TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 1 §4 & CHAPTER 115 §2382, in those sections or codes, compels these citizens with allegiance to the Constitution of United States of America to claim those rights and the court to accept the filed disclosure in the spirit of the law and the Constitution it was created under or show cause for not doing so with appropriate points and authorities.
PRAYER
The Citizens seeking a response to the application for an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for clarification of law in their efforts to comply in good faith with allegiance to the United States in the protection of its Constitution and laws made under it, pray for a decision from the judge of the court showing allegiance to the same.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE:_____________________ ____________________________
Christopher A. Brown
DATE:_____________________ ____________________________
Patricia C. Elton
Liability
Locked Account.
Wrong, asshole. First off, of course, there is no such thing as ad hominium.
Secondly, dicklick, ad hominem can never "compromise information," you idiot. Thirdly, ad hominems cannot prevent the disclosure of any information and thus can never qualify as criminal, you unmanly lying sack of shit.As gibberish goes that was impressive. Try to keep a few simple things in mind for future reference. Subject, object, verb. Saying whatever the hell it is you seem to be hoping to grunt out is so much more informative when you bother to make your sentences coherent.
There may have been a germ cell of a thought buried in that miasma, but we will likely never know. The fact is, however, ass-sucker, that you are not entitled to acquire an opinion from a judge when you "file" some unintelligible gibberish in the faux form of court-filed papers -- at all. Not "particularly" in this case. But in general. In particular in this case, you got more than you were entitled to. As I bothered to tell you long ago, your "filing" was unintelligible gibberish and was pre-ordained to garner nothing but derisive laughter.
It's funny to watch you babble like a trained parrot.
Except that "citizen" CriscoFEARa and his lady pal presented absolutely NO SUCH THINGS.
Nothing you attempted to show is cognizable.
It is, however, incoherent gibberish.You are not entitled to any particular response, citizen shithead liar. What you ARE entitled to is absolutely nothing in relation to the time-wasting idiocy you "filed" with a Court of Law. You are actually lucky that the Judge doesn't have you locked up as a threat to yourself or others. You are clearly quite insane.
slackjawed
Self deported
This is all it needed to say;
Citizens Brown and Elton on February 18, 2010 have presented independently verified evidence with facts establishing severe and dangerous mental derangement and hereby request involuntary commitment to the California State Mental Hospital in Napa, Ca for the rest of our natural lives to protect the public from physical dangers from our derangement as well as shielding the mildly unbalanced with our propaganda and possibly influencing them to believe lies and deceptions we have developed, nurtured and continue to proselytize to an innocent public.
PRAYER
The Citizens seeking a response to the application for an ORDER TO INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE HOSPITAL IN NAPA, CALIFORNIA, pray for a decision from the judge of the court showing allegiance to the same.
SIG LINES AND NOTARY STAMP LOCATION ETC:
the rest of what you wrote boils down to the same thing anyway.
Last edited:
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #1,432
The certified letter to the Chief Justice of the U.S. District court.
The judge never responded. A U.S. Marshal called, apologetically, and recomended we file a civil action. The clerk there recognized it was disclosure of criminal felony and treason. The criminal clerk aceppted it.
The judge never responded. A U.S. Marshal called, apologetically, and recomended we file a civil action. The clerk there recognized it was disclosure of criminal felony and treason. The criminal clerk aceppted it.
and the JUDGE being trained in the law, knew more than the clerk and refused it
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 350
- 0
- Banned
- #1,434
hey jackass, you knew since the 80s that the WTC was built with explosives in it. i'm going to assume you knew within minutes, if not days, about the attacks of 9/11.
WHY DID YOU WAIT YEARS TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF TREASON. WHY DID YOU HELP THE TREASONOUS HIDE BY NOT DISCLOSING THIS INFO FOR YEARS?
stannrodd
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 209
- 52
- 28
hey jackass, you knew since the 80s that the WTC was built with explosives in it. i'm going to assume you knew within minutes, if not days, about the attacks of 9/11.
WHY DID YOU WAIT YEARS TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF TREASON. WHY DID YOU HELP THE TREASONOUS HIDE BY NOT DISCLOSING THIS INFO FOR YEARS?
Imagine what a prospective tenant would do if they saw a documentally describing how the towers were built with C4 coated rebar in the floors.
I can't imagine there would have been a flood of applications to lease space there. Did you ever consider that Chris when you came up with this stupid fairy tale.
As for this knowledge of impending mass murder .. you should definitely be arrested and charged for being at least an accessory for not revealing this illegal deed to an appropriate authority before 9/11 .. don't ya think mate !
Stann
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #1,436
9-11-misprision of treason, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382
IN SUMMARY:
Statements of independent authorities providing testimony of a concrete core; Robertson, Oxford Encylopedia and August Domel are consistent with all images from 9-11.
Those independent sources evidencing concrete are tested against EXHIBIT “C” and PANEL 5 logically presented as misrepresentations of construction photos as the only corroboration's of the structure used by NIST in analysis.
IN SUMMARY:
Statements of independent authorities providing testimony of a concrete core; Robertson, Oxford Encylopedia and August Domel are consistent with all images from 9-11.
Those independent sources evidencing concrete are tested against EXHIBIT “C” and PANEL 5 logically presented as misrepresentations of construction photos as the only corroboration's of the structure used by NIST in analysis.
slackjawed
Self deported
Yup, I bet we could come back in another 5 years and he would be posting the same discredited bullshit using the same discredited quotes and the same discredited pictures.
He would be making the same discredited arguments and filing the same discredited papers and being the same nuisance to the court.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Thread starter
- #1,440
Agents cannot acknowledge they have no evidence and must misrepresent the discussion.
You've debunked nothing and you've only proven you conspire to conceal treason.
You've debunked nothing and you've only proven you conspire to conceal treason.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
"Just Walk Out" stores.............the future of shopping?- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 4
-
Video on the state of affairs in the USA / Iran Releases LEGO Animation Mocking Trump- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Swalwell Credibly Accused of Assaulting an Intoxicated Woman - Twice!- Latest: Seymour Flops
