I don't. I don't have enough evidence to specify who played what role in it.Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
Yes, I know the official story is bullshit. But that is not enough to consider the investigation over and done with.
I don't. I don't have enough evidence to specify who played what role in it.
Yes, I know the official story is bullshit. But that is not enough to consider the investigation over and done with.
never!
Well obviously you've got Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, and a couple of top Generals who can all be directly tied to 9/11 with solid undisputable proof. As far as the exact roles, that can be figure out later with the investagation. Think of it like a heist movie, if you know the guys who did it and have the proof, who did what is irrelivent exept for the sentencing part. Now if your going to sentence masterminds for the murder of 3,000 people, the exact roles wouldn't mean anything because being associated with something on that magnitude is about as serious as it gets.
Well, I don't see indisputable proof.
Now I am not a fan of the persons in question so if that proof surfaces I am definitely not going to have a problem with proceeding based on it but i have yet to see that happen.
As for your heist analogy - well, it works but don't forget that in the heist operation it still does matter who provides a getaway car and who shoots the victims.
The wargames would be the biggest piece of evidence as well as Bush's staged actions that day, the fact that Marvin Bush worked for the security company which handled the WTC and that whole thing. And so on and so on....
As far the heist analogy goes, yeah it's important to figure out who did what and get the complete picture, but when your even an accessory to the murder of 3,000 people, your in deep shit. If you drove the getaway car for someone who just killed that many people, it's wont exactly be the same sentence as driving for a small bank robbery.
The evidence you are talking about is circumstantial. Yes, this - and many other facts - are strong circumstantial evidence. I have yet to see any direct evidence, though.
As for who gets how much shit - with charges like that no one is gonna' get a small amount, that for sure. Yet I still insist we ought to resist temptation to even mentally convict people without sufficient evidence - regardless of how much we dmight etest those people.
It seem then that you have not been paying attention.
Solid physical evidence is at hand, more than enough to secure indictments, and it is a body of evidence that is still growing.
The real question is can we get the proper investigation and even move this show along to the trial phase.
Well, maybe... What are you referring to as "solid physical evidence is at hand"?
Also, don't forget that it is one thing to indict someone on a charge and yet another thing to secure a conviction.
(Thank you for your patience. I was in a bit of a mood last night.)
In the middle of this page, I believe:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006_06_01...g_archive.html
Personally, I find it to be damn compelling evidence. It is, I believe, the proverbial smoking gun.
Yeah, people will want to bitch and squabble over chain of custody of this evidence, but come on. It was the government that had (and still has) the responsibility of addressing these same very basic (thirteen) points, but chose instead to “scrub” the crime scene and continues to be noncompliant in turning over the physical evidence for examination. That combination of criminal actions on the part of the government and rediscovery of meaningful physical evidence by the people, along with a much, much more plausible explanation of what took place on 9/11 is quite powerful, IMHO.
If public awareness is raised about these salient points (and more), then the government may find itself facing a very unhappy power: the people. (I’m not totally sure how the “psychology” of all this will ultimately play out across millions of people, though. I think that is where we come in with regard to how the activism is conducted.)
And let’s take it a step further with regard to investigation of the physical evidence. Even if the government runs tests on the some of the evidence it is illegitimately withholding, those results are already quite suspect, given that they have destroyed their credibility with those ridiculously “unscientific” FEMA and NIST reports. (NIST had better be really, really careful what they say about building 7, but so far their actions of non-transparency indicate they are likely to continue "lying.") What physical evidence might remain needs to be sent out for testing in many labs, etc. and the body of people that directs this process should be carefully scrutinized, etc. – certainly none of these NIST and FEMA people should be allowed to participate at all.
Well, as you point out, there will always be that gap between indictment and prosecution.
Fast forwarding past the investigation phase: where might we expect this “case” to be heard? The civil courts are blocking it and congress is not doing as they are required, which is to allow and perhaps participate in a transparent and honest investigation. Obviously the depths of corruption in congress make it rather difficult to know who to trust; congress has pretty much destroyed its credibility with the people. (Aren’t their poll numbers even lower than the executive branch? This leads me to the conclusion that the government finds itself in a position where it might want to appoint a suitable proxy and stand down along with detention of the usual suspects until this whole "affair" is resolved, no? Perhaps the "military" branches of the government could agree to let the secret service handle this transition would be my suggestion to these people at the moment, but again, I don't really know who to trust anymore.)
I’m seeing that public awareness is the best crop that we can cultivate at the moment.
And the answer is no, I don’t want this to end up “accepted” like the JFK assass.
What's up YouCrazyDiamond. Good to have you here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote