Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 13, 2012.
Because you have provided none.
I think Hannibal means that in every sense of the sentence too. You have provided no substance or points.
What a spectacular argument from ignorance. You don't know what you're looking at because "labels are irrelevant" and you don't know what the report says because you haven't read it. If this were a courtroom, you'd be laughed out of it.
well now you kids sounds like truthers 10 years ago.
You have unwittingly admitted that your boss did not ID well over 50% of the iron while he hangs onto it.
Geezus what a red face you "should" all have!
yeh its all in the application, the labels you use are red herrings, try again!
oh contrare, I supply pics you supply nothing but have you read it? and you think I would get bounced out LOLOL
Proving once again never been in court even one day in your life LOL
something from your posts smells allright koko,and it's NOT herring.
I have read it, and you can't even bring yourself to lie that you have. How sad for you that you tacitly admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and you don't even realize it.
nothing tacit on any level, just good ole fashioned your boy is busted as a total fraud by your own admission, yet and you want to bow and submit to his authority to prove what my position incorrect.
How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing much more hypocrisy can you pour on this?
What's this jibber jabber? Who do you think is "my boy" and when did I admit anything about him? You do know that more than one person worked on the NIST report? Did you read it yet?
He was unable to locate the chain of custody section that was in the NIST report as well.
Koko, do you know anything about the law? As I linked too in the digital evidence requirements you are missing several components to those pictures that would allow them to be used as evidence. I quote:
Pay attention to the words in the color Red. Fang went out and did some of your work, just because he was sick of waiting for you to get your act together. However, you have never once actually sourced your pictures. You haven't provided any evidence at all, but you seem to have a penchant for raising your hands in the air for victory. Get with it.
you still have no explanation for the steel I posted pics of and your boss did not ID over 50% of the steel.
Maybe it vanished into thin air and he couldnt find it!
why didnt he id ALL the steel fang
where is hte rest of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing steel
What a stupid argument. Names and labels are irrelevant to you but someone needs to id 100% of "the steel" (whatever you think that means)?
Have you even read the report yet?
By the way, your trusty 1898 is a fraud. Webster didn't id nearly 50% of the words.
only to account for the steel, not to use as a pretense that the steel is somehow different and should look like it does as you tried to put up.
Dont get pissed at me that you are cornered with no place to turn but red face, you chose to argue the gubbermintalia position and bow and kiss the feet of authority now you get to talk like a truther in 2002 with nothing to work with because NIST did not even catalog any of it.
Of course that is fraud, misprision, breach of fiduciary and breach of the public trust. Especially since over 50% is just plain missing. You know just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing gone, and of course that means since you admitted to the piece not being id'd that NIST committed fraud. Hence you support fraud.
Now that we know over 50% just VANISHED INTO THIN AIR who is going to believe anything on those reports now. LOL
I made no claims about the steel. I said you need to do more than post two different pictures and ask us to assume that they are before and after shots of the same piece of steel, or that they should both look the same. That is the assumption you have made, correct?
You have not read the report. You have no clue what they cataloged and what they have not.
I admitted what piece was not identified? Are you talking about the piece that I found in the report that I asked you to read? Where do you live? Opposite land? I asked you to identify the source of the information you were presenting. I'm claiming YOU haven't identified anything you are attempting to use to support your argument. You can do that, and read the report, or you can continue to flounder around posting gibberish. I don't care either way. Frankly, each post you post without actually reading the report you're making claims against just further supports my own position on the matter.
I already told you that I read through that meaningless (*)(*)(*)(*) mess just not recently and their explanation as usual is insufficient, and I will not dig up anything for you, do your own homework.
No that was not what I was claiming which is why I have to continually remind you of your lacking ability to read for content.
everything I said stands and you fail to rebut and keep dodging it instead so I do not see any point in continuing this with you.
[koko logic filter]Your honor, everything I said about NIST not discussing the steel was wrong. My argument is still valid. You see I read the report a long time ago so I've completely forgotten what NIST discussed and didn't discuss. That doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty sure they didn't discuss these photographs of unknown steel that I obtained via FOIA from NIST itself. Even if they did discuss what I said they didn't discuss, their explanation is wrong because they didn't locate and identify every single piece of steel from the building. If you disagree with me then you didn't do the homework that I refuse to do. [/koko logic filter]
You posted two photographs. You claimed one was a piece of steel from "walmart." You claimed the other was the way the piece of steel looks now. Now you're trying to claim you didn't mean what you said? How does this work in a court of law?
Everything you said does stand; posted here for everyone to read. (your current attempts to take it back notwithstanding. I posted exactly where you can find the solution to your unasked question. That stands too. I even gave you the page number. It's not my fault if you choose to remain ignorant of the answer.
Koko, I'm a little confused throughout the rest of the thread here.
Can you answer a legitimate question for me? What is your actual theory of 9/11? I know you said that "You don't need a theory", but if you don't actually have one then why does the NIST report not fly with you? You have to have a theory based on something. If you think the government did it, Jews did it, Government Jews did it, Holston did it, I did it. If you don't have a theory then there is no point in arguing because you can, in effect, deny everything.
So let's get to the brass tacks Mr. Lawyer.
He likes to float in the gray water between the Judy Wood energy beam theory and the mini nuke theory.
Oh, ok. Well, then...good.
You need to understand how it all works.
Especially the propaganda mills.
Ole fang thinks he has a point and will continue dancing forever to post his "authoritive" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that I will tear to shreds like I did with his application of pryo steel. He can see the writing on the wall LOL Of course not before he strawmans it to his advantage like he has been angling for all along with his continual posting of red herring rabbit holes like a few others out here are so infamous for doing.
I only need to look at everything item by item and point out obvious defects. That is the kool thing about proving something out. They already made the claims. Its a matter of record. I only need show a preponderance of evidence that what they said is not twu. That has been accomplished over and over again by myself and numerous sources.
Either debunkers can explain these things or they cant. They have proven time and time again ad (*)(*)(*)(*)ingboringustodeath they cannot.
I do not need to solve the BIG PICTURE nor do I give a (*)(*)(*)(*).
Way over 50% of the steel is missing. Fang nor any of his presumed authoritative sources have a sufficient answer and they know it so none of them will ever answer that and I will never let him or any debunker or trougher forget it.
You will not find any explanation of this:
in ANY report from ANY agency. EVER!
In the actual video you can see STREAMS pouring off the columns like you were peeing over a cliff side. You have to look closer on a gif but you can still see it plain as day.
Gross is a trustee chartered by the people to work for the people and he has failed, hence committed a breach, I dont give a rats ass what race he is. He is guilty if several counts of fraud upon the american people.
You got a theory great!
Fang does not have a theory either. He wont say where the 50% of missing steel is and neither will his boss.
I provided pics of new exo iron and what it should have looked like. Fang in his infinite propaganda he is pushing pretends he can go to court and say but judge koko didnt read it.
Well in court thats a "titanic", fang and his ilk would be paying me money right now. This (*)(*)(*)(*) is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ignorant its laughable.
Alright koko,lets address the elephant in the room,so to speak.....where's your proof that 'over 50% of the steel is missing'?
*Edited out colors, and random .gif*
Then YOU need to piece it all together for me, the whole thing. From top to bottom, if you can't\won't do that then you can't accuse people of being ignorant, lying, or running from the truth. It means YOU haven't explained yourself and no one will know what you're talking about. It's not on me to put your story together, it's on you to present a case. No matter what court, in no matter what country, that is the way every single judicial process works. There are no exceptions to that rule.
This is exactly what I am talking about. This is what we call an assertion, right now you are asserting that Fang, or myself, or maybe even PF in general are propaganda mills. However, we don't know because you've presented absolutely nothing to back up what you're saying. There's no evidence, at this point you could be sued for libel.
All I see him doing is asking you questions, repeatedly in some cases. Those are called "clarifying questions", and are used to garner knowledge of the opposing individual\teams knowledge\views. Once that is done each team can present their cases. This is, again, a standard. Nothing different about this no matter if you are presenting your information at a state or federal level.
No, that is one of the most disgraceful comments to the way the law works. Your job isn't to point out defects, and call it good. You have to research those defects and find out if they are explained elsewhere, bring in experts to explain the things you don't know. This is called "expert testimony", and believe it or not that people that worked on the NIST report are just that. They are experts. You claim to be a lawyer, but step 1 for lawyers is knowing that finding the defects is only a fraction of the case. The next step is proving they shouldn't have been there, and then explaining why. Anything else would get you laughed out of court.
WE KEEP TELLING YOU THEY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. What about this aren't you understanding? Fang has said at least 5 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing times that the information you seek is in the NIST report. He's given you pages to go to. At this point is purely your ignorance that you keep saying that. It has been explained, you just either A) Don't understand it or B) Haven't read it. Take your pick, there are no other options.
Yes, you do. That is how the law works, and the fact that a lawyer would say something so ignorant is completely mind blowing. You can't go into a murder case and say, "My client is allergic to grass, there was grass there, he didn't do." Once again, you'd get laughed out of the court room in a heartbeat. You have to explain in it's entirety how your clients allergies to grass would affect him being able to commit any aspect of the crime.
Prove it. You've said it a thousand times, prove it. How much steel did we locate and label? How much steel was gone? I need weights for both, and include sources. Until then, you're just blowing hot air.
That is your own ignorance, he's explained it to you and given you locations to find the information yourself several times. As he pointed out, your continued posting stating he hasn't is just a testament to your inability or laziness to due research in order to educate yourself. Keep bringing it up, it only serves "debunker and trougher" cases.
Do you have an explanation? If so, state it. Provide sources and evidence to back up your conclusions.
We've proven that to be completely false, your own incredulity notwithstanding.
No, I can't. What are you proposing those to be "streams" of? Dust? Water? Nuclear Waste? Marijuana Smoke?
Once again, this is what we in the legal business call an "unsubstantiated" or "False accusation." The reason behind it is, because you haven't supplied any evidence that he was in breach. Give the facts, give the evidence, prove your case.
He doesn't have to Koko, you are making the claim. If that is the corner stone of your case than you have to say where the steel is, or provide evidence that it was either dustified, nuclified, or whateverified.
No, koko, they wouldn't. You would be paying laughed out of the court room. That's the point that I am trying to make. If you went into court about this specific instance, and you had NIST on the stand, you couldn't point to a picture and ask what's going on. It would play out like:
Koko: What is in this picture?
Koko: Where has 50% of it gone?
NIST: What 50%
Koko: The other 50% that is missing?
NIST: Missing from where?
Koko: CAN'T YOU SEE THE RAZOR SHARP, PAPER THIN EDGE
Judge: Case Dismissed, this sucks. Koko, pay everyone for their time. Let's get lunch.
I don't need to say you didn't read it. He'll figure that out on his own real quick. But we've already established that we're not going to get that far. You're going to proclaim that labels are irrelevant during discovery and then throw your own case out in the ensuing confusion. As I said before:
Thats the beauty of suing law firms.
Unlike this crowd I can have them sanctioned for the kind of (*)(*)(*)(*) you all are pulling here, and like my last case they know when they are beat and they simply cut me a check to cut their losses.
You people on the other hand crank out your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) strawman [UN]reason and try to pass it off as the something a court would accept. I have no reason to respond to any of this under these conditions. If you kids want to have a debate then answer and rebut the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing points I have made since page one instead of 50 miles of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Maybe if you rebut I will me more likely to respond to you as well. If you do not recognize the steel then (*)(*)(*)(*)ing call up gross and ask him why he did not ID it for you in stead of pissing and moaning and whining to me about it. Done.
You did not identify the photo you posted. That's not anyone's fault but yours. Despite the fact that you didn't identify the photos you posted, I found one of them right were you said they could not be found, namely in the NIST report. Beyond that, the photo in the NIST report was used to illustrate an analysis of exactly what took place in the structural member that the photo depicts. Your response was a pathetic attempt to complain that you couldn't locate the report to read even though I created a link to the content required which you then quoted in one of your own posts. If your intent here is to convince me that you're a lawyer, you going to have to do a little better to construct a cogent argument. Up to this point, yours don't display even a rudimentary understanding of how arguments are made.
Separate names with a comma.