It's no longer a conspiracy theory....

That's a false characterization of what happened. The AG for the Southern District of NY initially agreed to assemble a Grand Jury then failed to do so. The Lawyers' Committee then filed a Mandamus lawsuit. The lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing, which effectively denies discovery and a trial. It was appealed and the appellate court upheld the dismissal for lack of standing, again denying discovery and trial. A petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court and SCOTUS denied the petition without comment, again denying discovery and trial. So the case was effectively swept under the legal rug so that none of the evidence could be heard and challenged.

Without a so-called "Truth Movement", all that's left are LIES. The EVIDENCE still stands as EVIDENCE and is ALWAYS presented as fact in every legal case, you're not saying anything. And unless and until successfully proven otherwise, it is still EVIDENCE. That EVIDENCE if you actually went through it does not just consist of eyewitness statements, that is false. Lack of standing does not challenge any of the evidence.

 

LOL. No evidence exists on that "agreement." Now, there was a grand jury in NY that was looking at the evidence of the mastermind, but that was OBL, no one else. And that same grand jury was looking at four other men. The four other men were allegedly members of AQ and helped with the attack although they never took part directly in said attack. None are US government employees, and none are members of the CIA or any other clandestine organization that 9/12 truthers alleged were a part of. In fact, the person they did arrest from that grand jury was a detainee in GITMO, was captured in Afghanistan and was suspected to be involved. But that is not what your group alleges here.

The reality is that the Engineers and Architects for Truth hold onto the controlled demolition conspiracy theory, aka where that "thermite" assertion comes from, in how the World Trade Centers came down that day. As another person said, thermite is not an explosive. It is literally steel or aluminum steel oxide fused in a very hot environment. Enter jet fuel, which can be 100 times hotter than any normal fire you have seen in your life. This is where fire flames literally turn blue, not red, indicating how hot the fire was. And we also have evidence where the steel on the upper floores where the plane hit were fused quite literally with other materials and where that "thermite" exists as a byproduct of the events that happened that day. Everyone one of you has criticized the NIST and FEMA reports for "not being complete" and not answering all of your questions. Any investigation does not answer all the questions, nor does a trial, not completely. But that's not the point of any investigation, even one as serious and has public as 9/11. As I said, ABC has direct footage of a US American Airlines 757 crashing, quite literally, into the World Trade Center. From there, cameras from news media were focused on the towers, even showing people quite literally falling to their deaths to escape that fire, and the building collapsing. Eventually, good ole gumshoe work led to the 19 persons who were involved in all four fights, including what ordinary citizens did on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. And you have the audacity to call that lies?

The reason why I gave you that link to the petition is because that petition was denied in 2020. Now you are trying again with Garland and again, it will be denied. There is case law to deny such a petition, if you read the opinion of the court, especially the case law surrounding the decision to dismiss the suit. The appeals court and the Supreme Court denied any hearing on the matter, which means they affirmed the lower court's decision without any Constitutional discussion or question to be considered. The denial was based largely on procedural grounds, and that was the decision of the court. there was no hearing to determine the veracity of the facts. It was denied because there is no grounds to make such a pursuit.

What 9/11 Truth movement is trying to do is trying to emotionally and illogically rationalize what happened that day. So you want to blame the top for what happened and "make them accountable." The fact is AQ used a lot of loopholes within our immigration system, especially for students, and our naivety, to put it quite simply. This was explained by one of the flight instructors who thought it was odd to learn about flying and navigating first in the air, not takeoffs, and landings, which is usually the first to be learned, after ground school, when flying a plane. In hindsight, that is called naivety. So, there are no lies. It is just that you cannot accept the official determination just as the family of a condemned man to death cannot accept the findings of a jury sentencing their son to death for a horrible crime. Same thing, emotionally that is.

 

Thermate is a metal oxide there isn't an office building in the country that doesn't contain metal oxides while it is still standing let alone after you burn it down.

 

Lol...congrats on swallowing trump's lies. Keep throwing your country under the bus to pander to a malignant narcissist.

 

Of course that's usually but not always true. For example, "they did this because they hate our freedoms" or "no one could have imagined airplanes used as weapons". These are just 2 "simple explanations" for the simple minded.There are hundreds more "simple explanations" we were fed by the US government about 9/11.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

You posted the above "simplest explanation" and you can't come up with the simplest explanation why 19 "terrorists" wouldn't do that?

Er, because they would be killed. Not a simple enough explanation for you?

 

I have to agree with the OP to a certain extent, the truther movement is indeed no longer a conspiracy theory. The sheer lack of supporting evidence combined with the sure lack of even basic scientific knowledge on the part of it's most ardent supporters moves it from the realm of conspiracy theory to straight up fantasy.

 

Yeah right sorry but Middle eastern terrorists have been getting themselves killed for political reasons sense the Hashishin in the 1200's.

 

Of course, that's also false.

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/

What I posted is the unchallenged EVIDENCE supporting a petition for a Grand Jury investigation and the FACTS surrounding the 9/11 Commission and their official report. What I call LIES is the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. I did not get into the details of the thousands of lies we were fed by the US government nor am I going to get into these here, it would take hundreds of posts and that isn't my objective in this thread.

That's exactly what I said. There was no Grand Jury investigation and therefore there was no attempt to challenge the EVIDENCE. That means the EVIDENCE is still the EVIDENCE and still remains unchallenged.

No, it was denied because the court decided there are no grounds (i.e. "lack of standing") to pursue the case. The Lawyers' Committee presented their opposing arguments based on constitutional grounds. SCOTUS denied the petition for Writ of Certiorari without comment.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the above so I won't get into it.

 

Deleted, not worth responding to.

 

Going back to the petition is neither true nor false. It is an allegation the 9/11 truth are telling in which they are using to try to force a grand jury. Since it was denied on procedural grounds to begin with, that cannot be verified one way or the other since no hearing on such evidence existed. It was quite literally dropped in trial court, and the appeals courts and the Supreme Court agreed by not taking up the case and letting the original decision stand.

What you posted is facts and factoids. It is not evidence. it is statements of fact in a petition. Those facts may or may not be evidence. But they are disconjointed to say the least. It is just listed as the "evidence" for the reason they were wanting to force a grand jury, which the courts denied under procedural grounds.

Actually there was a grand jury in the Southern District of New York on who the mastermind was, in 2009. It was OBL, not GWB, Dick Chenney, or anyone else you can think of.

Denying a writ of Certiorari means that the Supreme Court let the original decision stand. Without comment simply means it was not worth their time to write a per curium statement on the matter. Thus, the denial neither confirms nor denies any of your allegations, and that is what they are, allegations, legally speaking. But again, you are trying this again with AG Garland and again it will be denied on the very same reasons. If lawyers continue to do this, they may face sanctions since the court has ruled on this more than once, and thus becomes a "frivolous" petition before the courts and wasting their time, quite literally.

As for the rest of my post, yes it does. It is just evidence you choose to ignore because it does not fit into your allegations, which makes your allegations more like conspiracy theories than anything else. And yes, Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth believe in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Towers even though all the evidence points elsewhere, conclusively I might add. With Thermite, that is basic chemistry, something I learned when I was a sophomore in high school and an experience the class did with metals and extreme heat. That was in the 1980s, mid 80s.

 

Obviously. But ANY explanation relies on this principle. If somebody were to argue (just an example) that the "pattern" in which the WTC building fell is more consistent with a planned implosion, they are implicitly claiming that this explanation requires less assumptions than it having been brought down by fire and that the building just happened to come down in a pattern that was compatible with a planned implosion. Of course, to do this one would have to ignore hundreds of OTHER assumptions that would be waaay less simple: what happened to the planes, why did AlQaeda claim responsibility, where are the terrorists that supposeldy took part in the hijacking, where are the passengers, how did the plane parts found in the wreackage get there, who was flying the planes that we all see on film striking the buildings.... Hundreds that the conspiracy theorists simply ignore.

The above is just an example of how to use Occam's Razor. Not an attempt to give the least bit of credibility to the conspiracy theory. So, don't bother answering them. Not interested in giving that nonsense ANY credibility by even hinting that I take it seriously. I don't!

That has not deterred Islamic terrorist in decades.

 

The real problem here is that it didn't come down like any controlled demolition ever. The pieces of it struck buildings more than a quarter of a mile away and damage three other buildings so extensively that the had to be torn dowm.

 

I've been following this slow moving train wreck since the 70's. I could care less about Trump, to tell you the truth. Like all things, there was good and bad in his term. I believe that many of his policies were helping the country out, e.g., immigration, hard line on China, re-shoring industry, etc.

My position is that the entire system is pretty corrupted at this point and we need some major reforms to re-charge the check and balance system in order to keep the funny business to a minimum.

 

You specifically posted "No evidence exists on that 'agreement.'" and I posted the link to the letter that makes your claim false. So what are you talking about?

No, it's a petition for a Grand Jury investigation filed by the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry.

SCOTUS did not agree to anything other than to deny the petition, so that's false too. You keep misrepresenting the facts. When SCOTUS denies a petition for Writ of Certiorari, they are not agreeing or disagreeing to the subject matter, they are merely denying the petition. SCOTUS routinely denies hundreds of these petitions yearly. If SCOTUS were to agree or disagree on the subject matter they would first accept the petition then decide on the merits of the case whether to agree or disagree.

What I posted is exactly what I said I posted, facts about the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report and related issues. In addition, I posted the list of Exhibits filed in support of the petition for a Grand Jury investigation. In legal terms, these exhibits comprise of EVIDENCE. They are in compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. If they didn't comply, the petition would be rejected specifically on those grounds. So again you are making a false claim. Evidence can consist of many things, facts, eyewitness claims, expert witness claims, hearsay, half-truths, fallacies, etc. This is all EVIDENCE which can all be challenged.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

(there is no such word as "disconjointed", perhaps you mean disjointed, regardless, it's irrelevant)

Thank you but that's also irrelevant to this discussion.

At least you got that right.

They are not MY allegations, I haven't filed anything. The rest of your post is irrelevant for multiple reasons, including but not limited to the false claim that these are MY allegations.

 

There is also another principle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ("Sherlock Holmes"). For example (just an example), the NIST hypothesis for the "global collapse" of the twin towers on 9/11 has never been proven by NIST or anyone else. NIST merely claimed "global collapse ensued", which is not proof of any kind. It has not been proven by experiment, real world event or computer model. So there's nothing "simple" about any explanation that cannot be proven. The same is true for the "global collapse" of WTC7. NIST's hypothesis, which they first claimed they "couldn't get a handle on", then took 7 years to come up with an illegitimate hypothesis supported by contrived data and other fallacies. So there's nothing "simple" about a 7 year project.

In other words, you've closed your mind and believe you used Occam's Razor to support your beliefs. That's ok with me. It's also interesting because I agree with many of your posts but I find you are not open to this subject.

You paint with a very broad brush. Just because other "Islamic terrorists" have committed suicide, it seems to me you decided that's quite a normal thing to do for "Islamic terrorists". Regardless, that's not the point at all. You said "Why wouldn't 19 terrorists take over 4 planes and crash them?" so I gave you a very simple "Occam's Razor" answer and it seems you moved the goal posts.

 

Wikipedia provides a synopsis and explanation of events, movies, tv shows, politicians, and so forth. It uses other articles and/or books to back up the summary being presented, especially on political matters. And in political matters, it is constantly changing, has a use of standards, and anyone can provide additional information or criticize the information contained therein. It is a starting point, not the end all or ultimate authority.

 

The only link you provided was the petition who made the claim. And that statement listed on the petition is not evidence per se. It is used as a statement of fact listed in numerical order. And yet, the petition was denied, period, and thus no hearing on the facts and no analysis if the facts are true, accurate, or complete. What you are not understanding legally, is that the statements are presumed true since trial courts and appeals courts do not analyze those statements whatsoever, just the veracity of the statement in which the petition was seeking a legal remedy.

It also included the Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth and a couple of other groups. It is actually listed in said petition on who the plantiffs are.

In fact, from your own link, these are the plantiffs: LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR 9/11 INQUIRY, INC.; ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH; JEANNE EVANS; RICHARD GAGE; COMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GIOIA; DIANA HETZEL; ROBERT MCILVAINE; and MICHAEL J. O'KELLY, Plaintiffs,

The individuals listed are all on the 9/11 Truth organization.

When the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, that is a very polite way to say we agree with the lower courts decision. That was the first decision and why the appeals existed in the first place. The Supreme Court sometimes issues a per currium, or per the court, but they didn't. They simply declined. And with some 7000 petititons each session, the Supreme Court only gets to decided on a couple of hundred, usually around 200 to 230 cases each time, both in its original jurisdiction, and as the ultimate authority. There was no constituitonal question at play here, which is why the court never issued a per currium court order.

First off, you cited the wrong link. Yes, you cited the procedural rules of what evidence is, and that is all you are showing here. But when you make statements on a petititon, none of that applies. These are statements of fact and are presumed true since the court making its decision on whether to proceed or not on procedural grounds. In its analysis, it states this, "In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court "must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint." J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004). The court "may consider affidavits and other materials beyond the pleadings to resolve the jurisdictional issue, but . . . may not rely on conclusory or hearsay statements contained in the affidavits." Id.; see also Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 200, aff'd, 561 U.S. 247 (2010) ("In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) a district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings." (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113)). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court may also "consider 'matters of which judicial notice may be taken.'" Greenblatt v. Gluck, No. 03 Civ. 597 RWS, 2003 WL 1344953, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2003) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 1993))." In other words, the court, when making its decision to proceed or not with the motion, is not going to state whether those statements are actually true, just accept them as they are. This is true if you stated in the claim, "the sun rises from the west and sets in the east" type of thing.

What I said was actually relevant. Whether you accept it or not is up to you and only you.

along with everything else.

But you are using it, and you believe in it, hence, it is also, by defacto, your allegations as well. You believe in it so much that any evidence to the contrary, according to you, is "irrelevant." And that's your problem and no one elses.

 

One can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. One can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

 

Some folks AVOID learning something new when it threatens their worldview. It's called cognitive dissonance, the sign of a closed mind.

 

I'm still bewildered by the fact that Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife somehow ended up being appointed Secretary of State.

 

And there is another adage, if it is too good to be true, it probably isn't.

 

Political appointment confirmed by the Senate from Obama just like Ben Carson's appointment as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in which he had no experience whatsoever. Again, much ado about nothing.

But then again, Monica Lewinski went to Italy, became a fashion designer, became quite successful in that cut throat industry, and at the age of 40, returned to NYC and is still being successful at what she does.

 

Neither you nor Sleep Monster have read Prager's work, and I understand why.

Meanwhile, credibility is evaporating....

 

Read or listened? If you really look at Prager's work, it is pseudo everything from history to science to politics. Even their discussion on capitalism vs socialism as a lot to be desired academically, and that leads to confusion at least, and at worst, false understanding of the issue at hand. This is especially true where Prager makes the argument against legal immigration, especially when counting, double counting, tripple counting and so forth who is eligible for the green card. And even the CATO Institute says that video has serious flaws into it.

 

You like it because it is such an excellent propaganda tool. With proper editing, false official narratives can live in the minds of the credulous for decades.