FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Discussing The 3i Investigation
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8807

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:56 pm    Post subject: Discussing The 3i Investigation Reply with quote

Let's CRACK 9/11

New audio introducing the 9/11 3I Investigation.

DSL Mp3 Audio

Dialup Mp3 Audio

9/11 3i
The Investigation Begins

by Fintan Dunne, August 1st, 2006

We are today begining the preliminary phase of the independent
international investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001.

The objective is to present preliminary findings and conclusions on the
upcoming fifth anniversary date: 11th September, 2006.

I would emphasize that this is just the preliminary investigation. We
are not looking for masses of detail at this point. More a question of
looking for basic facts, argument, weighing of evidence and the
opinions of forum members.

In a police investigation, you have the 'story' told by the participants.

This is equivalent to the 'official story' of 9/11. But as a cop, you first
job is to overview all this --spot the holes in the stories-- and reach your
own working assumptions of what actually happened.

That's the stage we are at. This preliminary investigation is akin to the
police investigation stage - not the courtroom stage.

It's another days work to rigorously present what may only be a subset
of the full investigation --as a provable conclusion.


So at this stage, we are looking at the official story, and the holes in it.
But we are also trying to figure out to our own satisfaction --as a police
investigation would-- what actually happened on 9/11.

So, we kick it around, we examine different possibilities, and we reach
preliminary conclusions. Then we can examine our own conclusions and
refine them with a firm basis of evidence for another report.

At this point we have an Investigation section where we can examine
specific issues like, say: whether many of the 'hijackers' are still alive.

And this section has broader 'Overview' topics where we can discuss
waht went on at, say: the Oentagon or the WTC.

We are also planning to add a '9/11 Analysis' section, in the next week
where we can discuss the geopolitical & political context, the
historical issues (i.e. PNAC), and people's analysis of what actually
happened on the day, etc..

That should compliment the issue-specific Investigation section.

Let's begin. Go to > Investigation

9/11 3i Convenor

9/11 3i
The Independent International Investigation

by Fintan Dunne, May 25th, 2006

We are today launching the independent international investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001 --and inviting interested parties to participate in establishing the truth of those events. The first objective is to present preliminary findings and conclusions on the upcoming fifth anniversary date: 11th September, 2006.

The need for such an investigation can be based on the results of a recent Zogby poll which found that 42% of those polled believe the US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up the events of 9/11.

That alone is grounds for an investigation. When a sizeable portion of the people are so unconvinced, then the common law dictat applies: justice must be seen to be done. It has not.

The need to investigate can also be founded on the fact that the remit of 9/11 commission was constrained to inquire into failures of the U.S. government apparatus leading to 9/11. It's focus was not on the 9/11 events themselves. Thus there has yet been no investigation of the 9/11 events. Nor is a state-sponsored independent inquiry likely.

Therefore it falls to citizens to begin the process of a true investigation.


Participants should be aware that this is a process which will take some time, and that our investigation will be issuing periodic findings of fact which must have a firm evidentiary and analytical basis. This will require a professional and considered investigation, and a measured and insightful analysis of evidence.

It should also be noted that while political themes and biases have naturally played a large part in theories of what happened on 9/11, that political aspects play only a peripheral role in this investigation. Political aspects are only relevant insofar as they can support an argument explaining the motivations of state structures, political parties and politicians etc.. Our objective is to establish the facts and the truth --rather than to score political points or view events from a political perspective.

With regard to the determination of our findings of fact, we will judge evidence and analysis more stringently than in civil cases --where the balance of probabilities is sufficient to draw conclusions. But we will not require to satisfy the criminal case stricture of 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' Somewhere between the two are judgments based on the 'significant preponderance of evidence' --which would be sufficient for our findings.

We lack the investigatory and forensic facilities of a policing body but that does not preclude us from using the deductive investigatory approach which drives formal criminal investigations.


As anyone familiar with organizations will know, any sort of committee or select group is simply a way of handing to much power to too few. This is especially inappropriate for any investigatory structure where infiltration by key individuals might skew an independent investigation. Therefore the inquiry should proceed as an open forum where debate and discussion are the test of any evidence presented and conclusions reached.

It would be optimum for the inquiry to have an archive of online material so that this can be referenced in postings --without concern that referenced material will not be available online in years to come. The collection and maintenance of such a archive would have to be appropriately funded.

I have published many articles about the events of 9/11, but would not expect the inquiry assume my published views are the correct interpretation. I will make presentations of evidence just as any other participant. In adjudicating the genesis of this quasi-judicial process, I bind myself in general to the conventional process and procedure of judicial inquiry as practiced in law.

There is a need to balance free expression with the requirement to clean malicious comments or posting spam from the discussion threads. So, to ensure free speech no postings will be deleted, but will where appropriate be moved --with the reason for such a move being given. Other forums use such procedures and they are generally viewed as a good compromise.

Careful design of the inquiry is the most important first step, so your suggestions for posting structure and methodology of the inquiry and your general comments are invited.

Finally, the aim of this inquiry is not to seek justice, or campaign for further investigation by official bodies. These are broad social and political arenas. If the findings of the inquiry have such a result, then so be it. But our aim is solely to determine insofar as we can the facts and the truth. That would be accomplishment enough in itself.

Fintan Dunne,
9/11 3i Convenor
Editor, BreakForNews.com

Last edited by Fintan on Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:25 pm; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Preface to Methodology.

It’s good to see a fresh start on this matter. It’s a good chance to clean the chalkboard of 5 years of mental debris that’s accumulated.

1. Recognizing fallacies in arguments.
My first post here is not to throw in my opinions on the event. I wish to suggest that everyone who’s not familiar with the basics of how to arrive at sound suppositions take some private time to look over this page, which defines the problem of fallacy (error in reasoning), and describes 42 common fallacies.

Fallacies –Avoiding Common Errors in Reasoning

Most (if not all) participants, even eye witnesses, simply do not have access to the proof of what happened. So it’s a given that we all must speculate.

Speculation with benefit has tried and tested rules. Before posting speculations, each person should consider some method of testing it against logic to see if it holds up to all possible sensible rebuttal. Pick a method you’re familiar with that you understand (a number of different approaches exist: scientific method, deductive/inductive reasoning, Socratic logic, etc.

Give your speculation or argument the ‘fallacy’ test at home first, before posting.

Postings are best supported with sources who have already followed the above procedures. ie. here is a worthy example.

To my way of thinking, there are Three clear research categories to consider.

A. The conspiracy:
1. the prologue (signs of planning). Consider the years of planning and social engineering on a vast scale that an event of unprecendented magnitude would require. Consider the timing. Political scenery, who's in office, what Gordon Liddy referred to once as the advance job.
B. The Event.
The science (physics and engineering) of the physical event.

C. The Coverup.
1. Exploiting the event: ie, Who benefits?
2. Maintaining the illusions, keeping it hidden, controlling the history.
Proposing 'solutions'.
A. 911 Commission

I urge everyone begin with review of the best information they know to date. Personally, I’ve gone to the archives to download and review May 2005 recording “911 Minorty Report”.

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs

Last edited by Ormond on Thu May 25, 2006 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Preface to Methodology. cont.

Consider the subsequent events that would not have been possible w/o
this catalyst event.

First, President automatically invoked the enhanced powers of "Commander and Chief" (See what this means, Constitution of the United States, Executive Powers).
A. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (and mirror legislation in UK, Canada, and EU)
B. Department of Homeland Security created
C. Occupation of Afghanistan
D. Invasion Occupation of Iraq
E. Carte blanche for US Domestic spying under NSA
F. Centralization of all intelligence agencies under direct DIA/Presidential
authority. (911 Commission 'proposed' this in 2004. Result, Dimitri
Negroponte created first Intelligence Director over all US Intel.
G. Eight trillion dollar US deficit

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Assumptions and Presumptions Reply with quote

I guess I would just like to reiterate the need for clarity on the direction this research ends up taking. Ormond provides a very good list of fallacies which I believe, when ignored, have in the past lead to the downfall of many worthwhile forum discussions on this, and many other topics for that matter.

Two of these which I would like to highlight are assumptions (which are taken as fact though not necessarily proven) and presumptions (which are believed to be fact based on the existence of other known facts). If these are not respectfully pointed out at the time they are made, they can lead many a researcher down fruitless deadends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher

Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. Ambitious.

Very interesting idea to focus on the events themselves, rather than their social and political implications. If we can clearly define our terms, and be allowed to ask others to clarify definitions of their terms without fear of hostility, then I'd love to participate, but I'm tired of being called a buttmunch for asking somebody to clarify their meaning. When there's more than one definition, I need to know which one is currently being used for the sentence to make sense, and sometimes people have a bad reaction to being limited to one definition per word, or their definition of 'investigate' means gassing about Bush. I try, at least, to be a very clear buttmunch, and as a very famous man once said, "That depends on what your definition of is is." Life's too short for another what hit the pentagon flamewar, so if it starts to go there, I'll grab a seat in the stands.

Sounds like it could be fun though, so thanks Fintan for convening and inviting - I wish the 911 3i a scorching success.

Fintan wrote:

Our objective is to establish the facts and the truth.
In adjudicating the genesis of this quasi-judicial process, I bind myself in general to the conventional process and procedure of judicial inquiry as practiced in law.
With regard to the determination of our findings of fact, we will judge evidence and analysis more stringently than in civil cases --where the balance of probabilities is sufficient to draw conclusions. But we will not require to satisfy the criminal case stricture of 'beyond all reasonable doubt.
Careful design of the inquiry is the most important first step, so your suggestions for posting structure and methodology of the inquiry and your general comments are invited.

Warning: Buttmunch has been all over the law books recently. This could get messy.

Since they're actually designed for just this purpose, perhaps we could use law dictionary definitions for the more important words like establish, facts, and truth and other biggies that come may up - this way we can spend less time bickering over semantics and more time on what hit the pentagon. (kidding).

I've been using the Bouviere Law Dictionary which is readable on the net. That way we could all reference the same words. Maybe there’s a foreign language version? I think it could be a real senseless argument ender. If Bouviere’s definition doesn’t apply to your usage, find the word that does by using the search function. You may be surprised to find out which word legally means what you want to say, but there’s one in there. If you want to really freak out, read a Time magazine article, then look up the most important words in a law dictionary, and read it again. Slightly different story now, huh? Which one’s the truth?

Bouviere Law Dictionary wrote:

FACT. An action; a thing done. It is either simple or compound.
2. A fact is simple when it expresses a purely material act unconnected
with any moral qualification; for example, to say Peter went into his house,
is to express a simple fact. A compound fact contains the materiality of the
act, and the qualification which that act has in its connexion with morals
and, the law. To say, then, that Peter has stolen a horse, is to express a
compound fact; for the fact of stealing, expresses at the same time, the
material fact of taking the horse, and of taking him with the guilty
intention of depriving the owner of his property and appropriating it to his
own use; which is a violation of the law of property.
3. Fact. is also put in opposition to law; in every case which has to
be tried there are facts to be established, and the law which bears on those
4. Facts are also to be considered as material or immaterial. Material
facts are those which are essential to the right of action or defence, and
therefore of the substance of the one or the other - these must always be
proved; or immaterial, which are those not essential to the cause of action
- these need not be proved. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3150-53.
5. Facts are generally determined by a jury,; but there are many facts,
which, not being the principal matters in issue, may be decided by the
court; such, for example, whether a subpoena has or has not been served;
whether a party has or has not been summoned, &c. As to pleading material
facts, see Gould. Pl. c. 3, s. 28. As to quality of facts proved, see 3
Bouv. Inst. n. 3150. Vide Eng. Ecc. R. 401-2, and the article Circumstances.

So, simple facts are things that have happened, and compound facts describe what someone did that they shouldn'ta ought’ta done. Seems to me that simple facts are pretty easy to prove, and compound facts are tricky.

Simple fact - "Four planes were reported hijacked".
Compound fact - "Terrorists hijacked four planes."

Bouviere Law Dictionary wrote:

TRUTH.. The actual state of things.
2. In contracts, the parties are bound to toll the truth in their
dealings, and a deviation from it will generally avoid the contract; Newl.
on Contr. 352-3; 2 Burr. 1011; 3 Campb. 285; and even concealment, or
suppressio veri, will be considered fraudulent in the contract of insurance.
1 Marsh. on Ins. 464; Peake's N. P. C. 115; 3 Campb. 154, 506.
3. In giving his testimony, a witness is required to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; for the object in the
examination of matters of fact, is to ascertain truth.
4. When a defendant is sued civilly for slander or a libel, he may
justify by giving the truth in evidence; but when a criminal prosecution is
instituted by the commonwealth for a libel, he cannot generally justify by
giving the truth in evidence.
5. The constitutions of several of the United States have made special
provisions in favor of giving the truth in evidence in prosecutions for
libels, under particular circumstances. In the constitutions of
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, it
is declared, that in publications for libels on men in respect to their
public official conduct, the truth may be given in evidence, when the matter
published was proper for public information. The constitution of New York
declares, that in all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may
be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that
the matter charged as libelous, is true, and was published with good motives
and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. By constitutional
provision in Mississippi and Missouri, and by legislative enactment in New
Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, Act of 1805, c. 6: and Vermont, Rev. Stat. tit.
11, c. 25, s. 68; the right to give the truth in evidence has been more
extended; it applies to all prosecutions or indictments for libels, without
any qualifications annexed in restraint of the privilege. Cooke on Def. 61.

So, according to this, ‘Truth’ isn’t something that is reached - it is something that describes the speaker’s intent rather than the information itself - By this definition, the opposite of the word Truth would be Lie, rather than False, as the actual state of things is not in question, but rather was the actual state of things misrepresented by somebody? By this definition, we would have to establish whose ‘version’ of events we are evaluating for signs of intentional misrepresentation. An illiterate could truthfully respond that he did not see the STOP sign. By this definition, the truth movement cannot exist until there is an agreed upon actual state against which to evaluate somebody’s representation of the events, and even then, it refers to the manner of the tale rather than the content. The word ‘Truth’ really doesn’t have much judicial power. Looks real sexy next to Liberty, though.

Bouviere Law Dictionary wrote:

CONCLUSION., practice. Making the last argument or address to the court or
jury. The party on whom the onus probandi is cast, in general has the

CONCLUSION, remedies. An estoppel; a bar; the act of a man by which he has
confessed a matter or thing which he can no longer deny; as, for example,
the sheriff is concluded by his return to a writ, and therefore, if upon a
capias he return cepi corpus, he cannot afterwards show that he did not
arrest the defendant, but is concluded by his return. Vide Plowd. 276, b; 3
Tho. Co. Litt. 600.

Well, that’s useless for our purposes, and the “911 Conclusion Committee” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

Bouviere Law Dictionary wrote:

PROOF., practice. The conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or
jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged: as,
to prove, is to determine or persuade that a thing does or does not exist. 8
Toull. n. 2; Ayl. Parerg. 442; 2 Phil. Ev. 44, n, a. Proof is the perfection
of evidence, for without evidence there is no proof, although, there may be
evidence which does not amount to proof: for example, a man is found
murdered at a spot where another had been seen walking but a short time
before, this fact would be evidence to show that the latter was the
murderer, but, standing alone, would be very far from proof of it.
2. Ayliffe defines judicial proof to be a clear and evident declaration
or demonstration, of a matter which was before doubtful, conveyed in a
judicial manner by fit and proper arguments, and likewise by all other legal
methods; first, by proper arguments, such as conjectures, presumptions,
indicia, and other adminicular ways and means; and, secondly, by legal
method, or methods according to law, such as witnesses, public instruments,
end the like. Parerg. 442 Aso. & Man. Inst. B. 3, t. 7.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Now we’ve got murderers involved -this word’s got some teeth. We’ve also got the word that means pretty much exactly what we’re looking for: “The conviction in the mind...of the reality of a fact alleged.” That’s what I’d like - some conviction in my mind of the reality of the facts, which five years later, are still crammed in the alleged file. ‘911 Proof’ is a good soundbyte too... I’m sure it’s been deflowered by some fake cheeseball already, but marketing aside, it seems to legally define what we’re after, since we’re not prosecuting or punishing.

I’d like to suggest that, as a preliminary step to evaluating Truth, we insert the step of establishing proof of the alleged facts. I have a feeling we arrive at a mental conviction of the reality of the facts alleged, we will find ourselves looking Truth squarely in the face.

I didn’t mention the word ‘evidence’ because, although it’s another ‘buzzword’ in courtroom dramas, it’s legal usage is for qualifying it’s ‘admissibility’ and doesn’t apply here. Look it up if you want - my post is already painfully too long. For us, it’s all admissible evidence we can say whatever jackass thing we want to, as long as we are able to prove it, by providing sound evidence. (See above. ‘there is no proof without evidence’).

As far as organizing the structure I’d like to suggest that we, by Bouvier’s definitions:
1. Establish a list of simple facts that we can all agree upon. I’d probably work backwards, as there seems to be doubt as to what we even saw. So, start with like - Fact: South Tower collapses at 9:59. Come up with some simple, obvious we-all-agree on facts as a basis of proven fact.

2. Once we have a list of facts we all consider proven, then move back in time to facts which may not be so obvious like - Fact: Fire in South Tower didn’t damage building structure (or whatever). Here, some might require evidence for this compound fact to be considered proven, some, maybe not. This way we can work from a list of ever growing and more controversial facts that we can classify as proven or not, which by our standards means providing a logical analytical argument strong enough to convince a handful of geeks on a web forum. I use words like geek and buttmunch with the utmost respect, mind you.

3. Once we have a list of proven facts we feel good about, we can start evaluating everybody’s 911 yarns, Fintan’s included, against our list of proven facts. If it ain’t sticking, we need to go back and prove more facts. My guess is the story that most closely coincides with the facts we consider proven will appear to be the ‘Truth’.

Then we’ll each have our own ‘Truth’, which is as close to ‘the’ truth as we’re ever gonna get. We already know it ain’t gonna be a pleasant surprise, but it’ll sure help us get on with the rest of our lives.

That’s my 22 cents. Sorry you asked yet?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:26 pm    Post subject: Counterintelligence will seek to distract your attention fro Reply with quote

Good advice, Jerry.

My two cents tonight is prompted from a fist fight about to break out on another 911 discussion. So a word on how to smell counterintelligence.

Ignore the red herrings and follow the trail of direct action...the demolition, the removal of evidence from the crime scene. In a murder case, what matters first is the corpse, the murder weapon, and witnesses.
Counterintelligence will seek to distract your attention from the real elements involved in the crime--such as the planes. They also seek to discredit the eye witness accounts of the tens of thousands who were there. HOW DARE YOU.

That being said, (for any COINTELPRO 'assets' viewing the blog), I will short circuit here an unfortunate 'melding' of terms I've noticed in 911 discussions.
Some will try to mention two 'theories' in the same breath, the same sentence. One valid, with another that's lunacy. That's an old technique to discredit witness testimony in front of juries. Luckily intelligent people don't fall for such a cheap trick.
Don't be conned by this subterfuge.

One example of an attempt at 'melding' is"

"...all sorts of false tracks, from remote controlled planes to holograms."

Remote control of aircraft is one thing, holography is entirely another.
The hologram notion is absurd. I challange anyone supporting it to explain projection holography, or even cite one example of large "free roaming" ""holograms" tjat you can document.
It's not enough to say, "the gub'ment can do anything". They really can't, you know. They just want you to believe they've got secret, magic. powers.
What they do have, is massive organisation and unlimited funds. That's it. They have at their disposal NASA, NSA, CIA, DIA, the MILITARY, IRS, INF, etc, etc......and the cooperation of any fortune 500 company or corporation you want to name.
But they do not have 'alien technology', or 'magic powers'.
They put their drawers on each morning just like you and me. One leg at a time.
I'm saying that 911, JFK, or what have you was done with conventional technologies. And 911 is a real crime, a big one. Big as Nero having Rome set on fire in 64AD. And real streewise tricks blown up big are being employed to go scot free for it. LIes and deciept being a big part of it.
Take heart......the perpetrators of the burning of Rome have never been proven......but Nero got about 20 knives in the guts in the end, because corrupt power makes powerful enemies. So there's hope.
Like any criminal, they're afraid of getting busted. That's evidenced by billions of bucks they spend on pure disinfo mongering and counterintelligence. We matter more than we think.
In the blink of an eye, the whole scam could come down on them, in spite of the money and control. It's up to how many people can snap out of stupidity and see what they've done for what it is. And that begins with investigating 911 "smart". With street sense.
People spouting "holograms" don't have a clue what holography is, or how it works. I do know how it works, So whomever wants to present the optical physics involved, and description of the equipment involved in projecting holograms of Boeing 767's in the sky over Manhattan in broad daylight, let's talk. I challange you here. The technology you envision simply doesn't exist, and you flunked algebra in high school, didn't you?

On the other hand, remote control of Boeing 700 class aircraft is an industry standard technology. It's a technology that exists, NASA has it, so if we're agreed that 911 was pulled off by a co-operative network of government agencies, remote control of the aircraft qualifies for discussion.

In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID)

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base
(Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing
to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree
glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft
was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact.

see the films here, courtesy of NASA (your tax dollars at work...)

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Counterintelligence will seek to distract your attention Reply with quote

Good advice, Jerry.

addendum, June 5

Ignore the red herrings and follow the trail of direct action...the demolition, the removal of evidence from the crime scene. In a murder case, what matters first is the corpse, the murder weapon, and witnesses.
A coverup will seek to distract attention from the genuine forensic evidence of crime, as well as frame a scapegoat with motive, means, and opportunity.

" The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival...It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is a state of war should exist. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. " - G. Orwell, 1984.

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had previously completed some research into the very topic which Fintan is now raising and I put together a proposal which I am now submitting to various forums and lists for discussion. Comments are welcome.



This paper will attempt to detail a mechanism whereby investigation and prosecution of various crimes related to the events of September 11th, 2001 may be undertaken in a lawful manner.

As a preface to this paper, it must be understood that it is the opinion of the author that some crimes are difficult if not impossible to prosecute using the traditional legal channels. The difficulties may arise from political or societal obstruction or may be the result of a legal process which has departed from the traditional notions of due process and the rule of law being equally applicable to all. Judges,
attorneys and public servants may be unable, due to their financial and professional reliance upon civil government, to properly investigate and prosecute crimes committed by agents of local, state or federal agencies. This inability to prosecute or even to properly and openly investigate crimes which may be a matter of public knowledge underscores a fundamental failure in the current manner in which the rule of law is
expressed within American society.

This paper is based in large part upon the research of American jurist Lysander Spooner as written down in his book, AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY. Due to Lysander Spooner's strong beliefs on the matter of common law and the trial by jury, the views and research presented may not be accepted by many legal professionals or modern courts. It is, of course, appropriate then that Lysander Spooner has argued that the modern courts have usurped a power which they now jealously guard: the power of the common law jury to present the law and the facts in a matter which requires affirmative action by courts of competent jurisdiction.


The primary lawful authority under which this paper presents its proposal is the Constitution of the United States, also known as the original, organic Constitution. This paper does not acknowledge any other source of lawful authority than the original handwritten Constitution with regards to the matter of trial by jury under the common law. The specific authority for the trial by jury under the common law are the cumulative framework established by the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendments to the Constitution, which are below transcribed:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Taken as a whole, the preceding four amendments are integral parts of the Bill of Rights and are specific as to the elements of due process and trial by jury. There are a number of critical elements of due process and trial by jury which must be defined before proceeding. All definitions are taken from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision:

1) warrant - A writ issued by a justice of the peace or other authorized officer, directed to a constable or other proper person, requiring him to arrest a person therein named, charged
with committing some offence, and to bring him before that or some other justice of the peace.

2) probable cause - A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that a person accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.

3) oath or affirmation
3a) oath - An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God.
3b) affirmation - A solemn religious asseveration in the nature of an oath.

4) presentment - The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offence, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government.

5) indictment - A written accusation against one or more persons of a crime or misdemeanor, presented to, and preferred upon oath or affirmation by, a grand jury legally convoked...
A written accusation of a crime presented under oath by a grand jury...
A presentment and indictment differ...A presentment is properly that which the grand jurors find and present to the court from their own knowledge or observation. Every
indictment which is found by the grand jurors is presented by them to the court; and therefore every indictment is a presentment, but not every presentment is and indictment...

6) jury - A body of men who are sworn to declare the facts of a case as they are proven from the evidence placed before them.
The term "jury," as used in the constitution, means twelve competent men, disinterested and impartial, not of kin nor personal dependents of either of the parties, having their homes within the jurisdictional limits of the court, drawn and elected by officers free from all bias in favor of or against either party; duly impanelled, and sworn to render a true verdict, according to the law and evidence...

At common law jurors were selected, usually, by the sheriff or coroner. It is done in this country in various ways; by judges of election; by town
authorities or by various officials or special boards or commissions.

7) trial - The examination before a competent tribunal, according to the laws of the land, of the facts put in issue in a cause, for the purpose of determining such issue.

Cool common law - Those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to the government and security of persons and of property, which do not rest for their authority upon the will of the legislature.

The above definitions will clarify the meaning of the terms which now follow in the body of this proposal.


As noted above, "common law" is law which exists as a matter of culture among the People of a Nation. Common law does not derive itself from written legislation, but instead derives from basic principles of natural law and the commonly held beliefs of "right versus wrong" which mark a civilized society. As such, common law encompasses things which are clearly crimes as determined by the People themselves. Common law does not, therefore, need to refer to written legislation to justify a thing which all reasonable men and women agree to be a crime. In such cases where clear crimes have taken place, the common law may be invoked, regardless of federal courts or other courts of, for example, equity jurisdiction.

"But it is in the administration of justice, or of law, that the freedom or subjection of a people is tested. If this administration be in accordance with the arbitrary will of the legislator -- that is, if his will, as it appears in his statutes, be the highest rule of decision known to judicial tribunals, -- the government is a despotism, and the people are slaves. If, on the other hand, the rule of decision be these principles of natural equity and justice, which constitute, or at least are embodied in, the general conscience of mankind, the people are free in just so far as that conscience is enlightened." Lysander Spooner, AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY, pg 62.

As Spooner observes above, natural law can only legitimately come from the "general conscience" of mankind where it represents the "will of the People". Any laws which are contrary to the conscience of the People are not natural laws at all but are man made tyranny. The Liberty of the American people was of great concern to the Founding Fathers and they therefore explicitly preserved the "trial by jury" under the "common law". Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as stating that, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

To understand the proper functioning of a common law trial by jury requires a clarification of the relationship of jurors to the jury trial and of judges to the jury trial. Here the history is clear that, originally, jurors *were* the judges:

"It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to the Magna Carta, such as the court-baron, the hundred court, the court-leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just." Lysander Spooner, AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY, pg 62

This jury power is confirmed by no less an authority than the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay: "But it must be observed that, by the same law which recognized this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Spooner concludes in his research that judges and lawyers originally served to inform juries of what the written laws said, as laws were often written in Latin and hence unreadable by the normal populace. The written laws would be taken into consideration by the jury but were quite often disregarded if they were at all contrary to the common conscience of the People.

A primary element, then, of a common law jury is that it need not have a "judge" as is typical in modern trials by jury. In modern courts, the notion that a jury may nullify law is an unpopular concept and is frowned upon by judges and lawyers who are very dependent for their livelihood upon the complex, practically inscrutable legal morass which represents the current legal industry. This has led to an environment where jurors are being forced to sign oaths under penalty of perjury to obey the "judge's" statement as the "law" and to restrict themselves solely to the "facts". However, here the modern juror is faced with a further quandary in that the standards of evidence are not left up to the requirements of the jurors but are determined for them by the court system. Spooner comments upon the absurdity of any situation where the law and the rules of evidence were controlled by one party. If, for example, the judge and the prosecution are from the government and they may decide for the jury what evidence the jury will be permitted to see and what evidence the jury is not permitted to see, then the jury may be completely controlled to the degree that they can be forced to render a verdict that, had they all available evidence, they would not have rendered. A proper common law jury, then, is not beholden to a judge but rather to the collective judgement of all jurors. A proper common law jury, then, does not allow either party to determine the standards of evidence but will itself determine the standards of evidence by consensus among the jurors.

"To have the trial a legal (that is, a common law) and true trial by jury, the presiding officers must be chosen by the people, and be entirely free from all dependences upon, and all accountability to, the executive and legislative branches of government." Lysander Spooner, AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY, pg 175

Another facet of the common law system is the diversity of courts. Whereas the current legal system has certain, preferred courts for the determination of justice, the common law system allows for courts of varying jurisdiction. It must be remarked here that a common law court is *not* a federal court. An example of a common law court with a long historical tradition would be the "Hundred Court":

"An inferior court, long obsolete...whose jurisdiction extended to the whole territory embraced in a hundred...There is no doubt that this was the primary court...It was the first well known judicial institution in the history of England." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd Revision, pg 1464

A "hundred" was a "division of a county which some make to have originally consisted of...one hundred free families." [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd Revision, pg 1463]

Example of a similar court might be the "Court of 9/11 Families", being composed of the family members of victims. Such a court would be empowered under the common law to hear testimony under oath related to the crimes whereby the family members suffered loss of life or exposure to toxic chemicals.


The historical division between a jury and a grand jury is more recent. A grand jury is specifically tasked with a "presentment or indictment" responsibility. Typically, a grand jury is convened by an Attorney General, however, an Attorney General is unavoidably dependent upon the government for his livelihood and hence may be swayed by political factors. Due to this, there is a recognition of what is known as a "private attorney general":

A private citizen who commences a lawsuit to enforce a legal right that benefits the community as a whole.
Both at the state and federal levels, legislatures in the United States have attempted to protect important rights and promote important public policy goals by empowering private individuals to bring suit and recover attorney's fees and costs if they prevail. Individuals who bring these claims, or their attorneys, are said to be acting as "private attorneys general." Most civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises - one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A [public accommodations] suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action . . . he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general" provisions that provide for the enforcement of laws prohibiting employment discrimination, police brutality, and water pollution. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, "any citizen" may bring suit against an individual or a company that is a source of water pollution.

The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playingfield so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, "[i]f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court." Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party," § 1988 acts to shift fees, including expert witness fees, and make those who acted as private attorneys general whole again, thus encouraging the enforcement of the civil rights laws. The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be "adequate to attract competent counsel" to represent client with civil rights grievances. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.

In cases where a class action lawsuit would be the natural means of reaching a large and indefinite set of plaintiffs, a private Citizen may act on his own authority as an attorney general. If one extends this private authority to its logical conclusion, then a private attorney general may convene a private grand jury for the purpose of investigating crimes known to the general public.

It must also be noted here that the trial by jury under the common law is an "inalienable Right" and hence transcends the boundaries of a "civil right". Civil rights are dependent upon civil government for their preservation but "inalienable Rights" are a matter of natural law and cannot be abridged by civil government.

Further acknowledgment of the "private attorney general":


Both statutes [RICO and Clayton Act] bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.

[Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates]
[107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]
[bold emphasis added]

In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.

[Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)]
[bold and underline emphases added]

Attorney General, Private

The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722. See also Equal Access to Justice Act.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[bold emphasis added]

According to the above, then, a private attorney general, in the public interest, could lawfully convene a private grand jury to cause presentment of evidence or for indictment of provable criminals. It must be remarked here that an indictment is a written document and hence subject to libel lawsuits if the indictment is materially false. Having sworn in twelve grand jurors, chosen, for example, by victims of the 9/11 crimes, a private attorney general would have standing to sue upon the presentment of said grand jury and could, if the grand jury was recognized by a local Sheriff, also have authority to issue warrants upon return of an indictment by said grand jury.

The major requirement for the formation of such a grand jury would be the need to ensure that the grand jury was administered a proper oath and thus bound to lawfully fulfill their accepted obligation.

If jurors are bound to enforce all laws passed by the legislature, it is a very remarkable fact that the oath of grand juries does not require them to be governed by the laws in finding indictments. There have been various forms of oath administered to grand jurors...The English form...is as follows:
" You shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such articles, matters, and things, as shall be given you in charge, and of all other matters and things as shall come to your knowledge touching this present service. The king's council, your fellows, and your own, you shall keep secret. You shall present no person for hatred or malice; neither shall you leave any one unpresented for favor, or affection, for love or gain, or any hopes thereof; but in all things you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of your knowledge. So help you God.

If twelve men and women can be made to submit to such an oath and act as Citizen-Jurors upon a matter of public interest, then the historical record indicates such a jury would be "lawful". Their presentment could be used as grounds for a private attorney general to launch a lawsuit. Similarly, if sufficient evidence and testimony could be obtained to merit indictment, then the indictment of such a grand jury should be sufficient to force, for example, the county court where the crimes took place to place the action into the court docket.


A theoretical application of the preceding common law framework:

1) Locate an appropriate private attorney general. The private attorney general should be literate and reasonably versed in lawful procedures but should not be a current member at bar nor a member of any local, state or federal agency.

2) Determine a suitable matter of public controversy, such as the EPA WTC air quality fraud or the illegal removal of evidence from the World Trade Center.

3) Locate twelve men and women who, by testimony from people familiar with the twelve, are good and upstanding members of their communities who have no prejudices regarding the matter to be investigated.

4) Swear in these twelve men and women as grand jurors using an oath of the same form and intent as the ancient oath given to jurors.

5) The grand jurors may then investigate and research. They may also administer a similar oath to any witnesses willing to acknowledge the lawful nature of the grand jury and take the testimony of such witnesses under oath. They may also take the testimony of "experts" as evidence for future presentment or indictment.

6) The grand jury prepares a presentment of their evidence. This is essentially a report, signed by the jurors as true, which details the crime investigated and the conclusions reached. If any person in the presentment is accused of a crime, then an indictment must be returned for that person. The presentment/indictment is returned to the private attorney general.

6a) It must be noted that the grand jury should make all attempts to collect as many "affidavits of truth" as possible from members of the class to which the action belongs to establish sufficient standing to overcome any attempts at destroying the class action nature of the suit.

7) The private attorney general files a public lawsuit in a local court, *not* a federal court.

It must be remarked that the above is a very simplified reality and it ignores the complexities of bringing such a case to trial in the modern courts. What happens then if the courts will not acknowledge the grand jury findings?

It is clear from the history of the common law, that the proper solution would be to have the parties form an independent court to bring to a common law trial those matters which the modern courts, for political or similar reasons, cannot bring to trial. If enough common law courts of this manner were convened and these courts reached substantially the same verdicts, then the rule of law would eventually force the modern courts to acknowledge the legitimacy of the claims or the modern courts would, essentially, lose business.


Further detail upon the common law procedure will now be given. It must be understood that common law works best when it is acknowledged by prosecuting parties as lawful; therefore, the cooperation and understanding of local Sheriffs and peace officers is vital to the success of any common law proceeding. That said, the common law is based upon the principle that all private men and women have a just interest in and duty towards the rule of law. The following discussion is taken in large part from A SELF STUDY COURSE OF COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY LAW, published by the Blackstone Institute in 1914 for the purpose of studying towards the bar as an attorney in common law. This text is available from lawresearchgroup.com for a reasonable fee, quotes below will refer to this text as "BSG" [Blackstone Study Guide]


"There are four different way, or modes, of prosecution by which a formal accusation of crime may be lodged against a person. They are complaint, information, indictment, and presentment. A complaint is the least formal of these modes. It may be filed by any person competent to be a witness. TAULMAN V. STATE, 37 IND. 353. It is generally required to be in writing and sworn to. It should distinctly charge an offense, although, as a rule, it need not be drawn with the same care and observance of the rules of pleading as is required in informations and indictments...Warrants for arrest are legally issued only upon a complaint or affidavit made by some competent person or an officer, and only upon probable cause. The issuance of such a writ lies in the sound discretion of the court...In general, however, such a complaint must be in the form of an affidavit, that is, upon oath, and there are constitutional provisions in many states to the effect that no warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon oath or affirmation first being made." - BSG pgs 260-261

This quote outlines the least formal mechanism for establishing the jurisdiction of a common law court and is based upon the sworn statements of competent witnesses. A set of complaints in affidavit form, duly filed and properly sworn to, would form a sound basis for a common law proceeding.

"In a number of states...the law provides that the usual mode of prosecution shall be by information. An information in its form is practically the same thing as an indictment. It is an accusation in writing presented to a competent court by a public prosecutor, instead of going through the hands of a grand jury." BJS pg 266

The above quote indicates that a public prosecutor, which we shall call a "private attorney general" to be in harmony with the spirit of this proposal, has authority to deliver an "information" to a competent court of a criminal matter.


"Arrest is the taking of a person into custody. MONTGOMERY CO. V. ROBINSON, 85 ILL. 174, 176 It consists of actual seizure, or touching, of the body with the purpose of detention...An arrest may be made with or without a warrant. At common law any peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest any person committing, in his presence...a breach of the peace. COM. V. CAREY, 12 CUSH. 246(MASS.). For other misdemeanors a warrant is necessary. COM. V. WRIGHT, 158 MASS. 149, 33 N.E. 82. A private person may, likewise, when he has reasonable cause to suspect that a felony has been committed, arrest, without a warrant, a person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed it. A private person may also arrest, without a warrant, a person whom he believes to have committed a felony, providing the felony has actually been committed. Any one may also, without a warrant, arrest any person whom he sees on the point of committing a felony, or a breach of the peace." BSG pg 261

Here the power of private individuals to act under common law in the arrest of suspected felons is manifest. It must be observed that wrongful arrest of any person can lead to a suit for wrongful imprisonment so for this reason a certain presentment or indictment are preferred lawful mechanisms.


"The same general principles as to form and contents, and rules of pleading, apply equally to informations, indictments and presentments." BJS 267 The modes of indictment, presentment or information [hereafter called "indictment" for brevity] have a similar form where the major parts of an indictment are the commencement, statement [of the charges], and conclusion.

The form of any of the modes of indictment are detailed but here follows a reasonable synopsis:

1) Caption - The title of the cause, authority of the accusing party, name of the court, the venue [if applicable] and possibly the time of issuance.
2) Commencement - "A recital that the charge is presented by the grand jury on oath as jurors for a particular authority [for example, jurors for the borough of Manhattan" or for the "State of New York"]
3) Statement - Contains the formal charges against the accused.
4) Conclusion - Will indicate that the peace of, for example, the State has been threatened or breached.
5) Signing and indorsing - Generally signed by the foreman of the jury and possibly requiring the signature of the prosecuting attorney.

A proper indictment must be clear in the charges which it brings and must support those charges with factual information. The indictment must avoid drawing conclusions, presenting arguments or expressing private beliefs. An indictment must restrict itself to known and proven facts. An indictment must further specifically charge an offense and cannot present possible alternatives as charges. If a man commits murder, the indictment must clearly state the facts of the murder and that the murder was a crime, avoiding any language which would result in murder or, for example, accidental homicide as possible accusations. The indictment must also clearly and fully name the accused and the time and place of the crime committed. The time may have a range or alternate dates but must specifically state the alleged dates. The indictment must also indicate that a "criminal mind" was required to commit the alleged crimes. This criminal mind consists of willfully or fraudulently or maliciously acting against the public or private peace and well being. The indictment must be accompanied by exact facsimiles of any documents to be used in proving criminal intent or the facts of the allegations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In discussion of the above proposal, opposition was raised to the use of certain terms due to their legal implications [such as association with the 14th Amendment and legal code]:

1) Citizen or citizen as being members of the corporate body politic
2) Public as being indicative of those class of persons who are legally members of an incorporated artificial governmental area such as a city, town or state.

Are there any thoughts on those two particular words?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Issue in general & Natural vs artificial persons Reply with quote

I feel that some of these precautions might be exaggerated given the task at hand; reviewing facts, motives and circumstantial evidence. I don't see why the 14th amendment would have much relevance in this particular undertaking. Understanding the distinctions between natural and artificial persons would be essential if we were exploring long-term stratagies for harnessing political/corporate bodies and keeping them in their proper place, but not in reviewing the evidenciary problems posed by the many official stories of 9-11. We know who we are, even if constitutional language has been twisted against us or has lost it's meaning with the general public, as in our de-facto court system.

9-11 was a physical crime, but the ramifications were extremely political and continue to shape the character of limited hangouts and other tools in the cover-up aresenal. Illusions of objectivity shouldn't cloud our reasoning, and surely not at the expense of our better instincts. Self-scrutiny is the best rule of thumb and everything I've read in this thread seems helpful to that end, so long as we don't get entangled.

Years of anguish and irritation brought me to this forum. I feel I was born to be a critic, and the errors and oversimplifications in Eric Huffschmidt's Painful Deceptions tweaked me - even more so when they were amplified in 9-11 In Plane Sight. When Loose Change came out I posted a warning on Letsroll911 forum about the Pentagon 'no plane' booby trap, for the second time actually. Loose Change II was only slightly improved. Despite the mistakes, I'm not ready to dismiss any of these film-makers as 'operatives,' though I am amazed at times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Des Moines, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject: Turn on the lights bright and clear. Reply with quote

Let the truth be said and known. The only ones who will not find this investigation welcome are those who fear the truth, for they are the ones who have the most to lose, and they are the ones who have believed the lie. We often have to give our all, as this is required in any worthy cause, and when the end results add up to the truth, and only the truth, then all are winners, even those who are exposed, for we all know then how we all stand before the "Judgement" seat. The truth has, and can be put off, but it can never be hid indifinately. Light has it's ways of finding the smallest crack, and then to engulf the whole area once it has been penetrated with that light. You ever notice how the cockroaches all go a running when the lights are turned on. So I say let the light shine, and let the vermin run!
"Always Tell The Truth, Even If It Hurts, And To This Day I Have Never Been Hurt", Michael Travesser
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, the many coincidence theorists on the various message boards I frequent will explain how (a) this investigation will "dishonor those who died" on 9/11, and also (b) how it will "distract from the real crimes of the Bush administration."

Therefore, it shouldn't be done. Let's move on, people. Nothing to see here. :roll:

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 1 of 9

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.