9/11 WTC Demolitions, American Anger Lives On! The Criminals Exposed!

steel is evidence, the fact that debunkers think there is nothing wrong with it proved beyond a shadow of unreasonable doubt they know nothing about it and should consider discussing macrame instead.

The only one trolling here is you.

 

Steel is evidence. Fuzzy, un-sourced pictures of steel are not.

You're getting funnier with every post!

 

Koko, you didn't answer anything, and you appealed to the "others". Are you finally admitting that you don't know what you are talking about?

I see the pictures, but let's pretend I know absolutely nothing about steel. In fact, let's pretend you're at a trial and you are attempting to explain this to a jury who knows nothing about steel. For each one of those pictures that you have posted, can you tell me what the effects on the steel are and how they show controlled demolition? I know at trial you don't just keep showing pictures and saying, "See? Can you see what I'm talking about?"

You show a picture and say, "You can tell by the red color that oxidation occurred", or whatever the case. I am >>>NOT<<< saying that is what happened here, I am just giving an example. So using that format, please show your pictures and provide commentary under each one that shows what has happened to the steel, and the method that you use to determine it is a controlled demolition. Whether that be the way it's twisted, or anything else. Also, I know what a Freedom of Information Act request is, and how to file one. I am aware of how to locate the information from them, but please provide YOUR source. Show me where YOU got those pictures.

This is evidence, and it's also the legal process for admitting evidence. You show a chain of custody for your "evidence." This is beginner stuff Koko.

 

You don't seem to understand, I am asking YOU to explain WHAT is wrong with it. That's it. Why are you dodging?

 

sure, which debunker wants to be to put on the stand first? YOu get to be NIST!

How about you since you suggested it and we will have ourselves a trial.

 

yeh buh buh

thats what I am talkn bout!

Now you are talkin my kind of debate!

That evidence card plays both ways!

Do you have any idea how you just hung yourself?

 

Then let's debate, I'll throw straight into your wheelhouse.

I am on the stand, right now. I know you aren't a real lawyer so I have provided a link to the Federal Rules of Evidence. This is the standard that all evidence has to follow in order to be used in a court of law. So please post your pictures or youtube videos again. Using these rules according to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the digital evidence requirements we will evaluate if your evidence fits standards. Please be sure to provide any sources as those will go to the authenticity of the information provided. To make it easier I have provided the initial requirements below to ensure there is no confusion.

Your move counselor.

ETA: Screaming in caps, "IT'S FROM THE NIST FOIA REPORT, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS." Isn't acceptable.

 

on second thought, we have not had discovery yet have we?

I want all video clips collected by the fbi specifically the pentagon, and relaed information from any other source, the black boxes, the names of everyone within any agency that helped with the cleanup, security details for the chain of all evidence provided for this investigation, complete with a listing of all investigation objectives, protocol, test results.

I want osama bin ladens full medical and citizenship records, fuall accounting and signed affidavits regarding the 19 jihackers, the database known as al quada and all operatives involved, complete with UAE hospital records.

All records and signed affidavits of chain of custody for all records jointly and severally used in the commission report.

All records and chain of cutody for all evidence collected by fema nist and emergency workers.

all serial numbers on all parts of any aircraft with full affidavits of chain of custody.

federal court right? If you do not provide it I will move for sanctions and fines and the judge will force you to appear at a 26f conference and spank yo ass!

 

what your attorney cannot provide proof of any chain of custody for anything?

 

HAHAHAHAHA so you can't even hang a little bit can you? Gotta find a way to bog down the conversation instead of advance it. By the way, if I am on the bench I don't have to provide the evidence. Do you know anything about law? YOU are the one making the accusations AGAINST NIST. NIST isn't making accusations against you, which means YOU have to provide the evidence, not me. I am the defendant in this situation, if I am sitting on the bench. You are so horrible at pretending to be a lawyer it's not even funny. The discovery goes both ways, and I have been asking you for evidence to backup your claims for a long time. You can't demand something of me that you can't provide yourself.

I'll play your little game, although you know you are asking me for classified information which I couldn't possibly have access too. It'll be fun to watch you run away with your hands held high.

Everything you're looking for that is available. The black boxes were, for the most part, destroyed. The rest of the information you seek is buried in that document. As part of the individual providing the information it is not my responsibility to tell you where, nor am I required by law to give you that information. I provide the information in whatever form\media I desire and it is up to you to read through it and locate it. Also, the pentagon investigation has absolutely no relation to the steel, which is the focus of your inquiry, as it is irrelevant your request is denied. Show me case law, or Legal Precedent as to why\how this information is relevant and it can be revisited.

Which is something not even the US would have leisure access too as his full medical records, and citizenship records are protected by that country. You would need to have Legal Precedent as to why you would need those documents. As your request has no relation to the steel, which is the focus of our inquiry\trial, this motion is denied as irrelevant.

All of that information is actually contained in, you guessed it, the commission report. There is also more in this report. Happy reading, let me know when you find what you're looking for.

Alrighty, there you have it. That's for just the FEMA workers though, as far as the NIST report goes this is for all of the tests and the evidence that worked on by NIST. All of the information is there, you just have to find it.

There are select pictures like this. They do contain serial numbers, obviously asking for all of the serial numbers for all parts of any of the aircraft is ludicrous. That doesn't even happen in standard aircrashes, let alone ones of this magnitude. However, you can go to websites like airliners.net and they have all of the serial numbers for all of the parts.

I answered this question without needing too, however. The serial numbers of the plane have absolutely no relevance to the case, as this case is regarding the steel in the towers.

Which of course would get you absolutely no where. A 26F conference would state I didn't disclose, but since by law, according to rule 26.a(i):

I am in no way intending on using FEMA, the airplane information, or anything regarding Osama Bin Laden as evidence to explain what happened to that steel. So I have no requirement at all to provide any of that information to you. You, as the person making the claim of demolition, would have to provide that information to show that FEMA, OBL, etc WERE involved.

Again you fail at the one thing you claim to be, you don't even understand when you can file the proper motions.

One ass would get thrown out of the court room, and it wouldn't be mine. Next.

 

Got news for ya, you provided not even one affidavit or chain of custody document in that big ole long post of yours.

That means everything you provided above is hearsay and frivolous.

Nice try, better luck next time.

 

How would you know? You responded in less than 30 minutes to my post. It would be, literally, impossible for you to have read any of the links or search them for chains of custody.

At no point did you even attempt to refute any of the information. You simply hand waved it away.

You're pathetic.

 

but you know what?

we can certainly have a littel fun with that

do you know this guy?

 

There you go, more unsourced pictures.

Are you upset I handed you your ass on a platter?

Are you upset that you couldn't even compete with a "layman" in regards to law when you call yourself a lawyer?

Are you upset that no one takes you seriously?

Are you upset that you've been shown to be a fool and a liar over and over again?

Are you upset that you and your little "movement" have gone no where, and done nothing in 10 years?

Keep posting Koko, it's fun watching you run away like a little girl from the facts.

 

No, I don't. Cause I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*), just like reading your words. I respond to you because it's fun for me to watch you change subjects, run away, pretend you have knowledge, and watch you squirm when I continuously hand you your ass using your own terms.

 

oh come on what kind of debunker are you?

He is the guy who did not see any molten steel, in fact he didnt see anything at all

[video=youtube;wcqf5tL887o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o[/video]












I guess NIST felt this stuff was not important enough to mention in any documentation huh.


small world eh.

 

Does it bother you that you just got completely owned by someone that has no legal experience?

Does it bother you that using your own rules and standards you got rocked?

 

If you think you won that on any level, you did not understand one word I said, nor have you ever personally taken a case to federal court.

Oh and btw neither did you read the rules correctly, nor do you understand exactly what you needed to supply.

Suffice to say I would have had you sanctioned and the case thrown out and a ruling against you because none of your evidence comes with first hand knowledge and is admissible hence your whole premise is frivolous.

On the other hand you see your boss chief malfeasant holding onto the very piece of steel that was disintegrated.

I know that makes you feel just ducky!

 

I don't really think a touristy photo of your luggage on the steps of the second circuit counts. Even if it was Samsonite.

What case are you having thrown out? Aren't you the one with the complaint?

 

You are now down to contradicting yourself in one sentence. Amazingly funny.

I would wager that no one could contradict themselves in one word, but I imagine you'll find a way.

 

Thanks, I take my coffee black!

Yes by all means correct it to read "PARTIALLY" disintegrated.

Thanks again.

 

its not clear who was who but I always go in as the plaintiff so his motions would simply be dismissed and ruled against.

 

he stood right there and looked at it and the thought of checking for accelerants and explosives never for a moment crossed his mind.






and this






and firestarter! that naughty lil gurl!




wow look at all that melted steel!




and the new improved steel!









I guess NIST felt this stuff was not important enough to mention in any documentation huh.

 

So you're having your own case thrown out?

 

unless you have serious comprehension issues stop trolling by changing the meaning and strawmanning what I said.


Now if you want to get on the present topic,

Tell us about that steel.

You are the self proclaimed steel expert tell us how steel can come to look like that and why NIST failed to mention it.