Political Crossfire Forums

[Otacon]

Paul, you said you'd debate this in another thread, so here we are. What I said still stands. The government would have disposed of Avery and taken Loose Change offline. This film is supposed to proove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 9/11 was carried out by the federal government, but they response is to simply discredit him? That wouldn't work in this situation, because after seeing this film, you supposodly supposed to be converted to the "good" side and never turn back. The government would take down a film that would prove that they murdered 3000 Americans. Hell, if they were that evil, they wouldn't need an excuse to fight terrorists in Iraq.

[JohnnyQ]

Otacon wrote: Paul, you said you'd debate this in another thread, so here we are. What I said still stands. The government would have disposed of Avery and taken Loose Change offline. This film is supposed to proove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 9/11 was carried out by the federal government, but they response is to simply discredit him? That wouldn't work in this situation, because after seeing this film, you supposodly supposed to be converted to the "good" side and never turn back. The government would take down a film that would prove that they murdered 3000 Americans. Hell, if they were that evil, they wouldn't need an excuse to fight terrorists in Iraq.

That would just fuel the fire.

[psholtz]

Otacon wrote: Paul, you said you'd debate this in another thread, so here we are. What I said still stands. The government would have disposed of Avery and taken Loose Change offline. This film is supposed to proove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 9/11 was carried out by the federal government, but they response is to simply discredit him? That wouldn't work in this situation, because after seeing this film, you supposodly supposed to be converted to the "good" side and never turn back. The government would take down a film that would prove that they murdered 3000 Americans. Hell, if they were that evil, they wouldn't need an excuse to fight terrorists in Iraq.
Yes, I agree w/ the above poster that it would just fuel the fire.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: That would just fuel the fire.

zzzzziiiiiiiiippppppppt

Wrong answer - Leaving him alive is doing the same thing.

Warning self defeating arguement alert

[JohnnyQ]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: That would just fuel the fire.

zzzzziiiiiiiiippppppppt

Wrong answer - Leaving him alive is doing the same thing.

Warning self defeating arguement alert

Killing him would be even bigger is all I'm saying.

[Free Thinkr]

yanniv wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: That would just fuel the fire.

zzzzziiiiiiiiippppppppt

Wrong answer - Leaving him alive is doing the same thing.

Warning self defeating arguement alert

Killing him would be even bigger is all I'm saying.
Bigger and more obvious than 9/11? :lol: Sure, whatever.

[Rhoades]

Otacon wrote: Paul, you said you'd debate this in another thread, so here we are. What I said still stands. The government would have disposed of Avery and taken Loose Change offline. This film is supposed to proove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 9/11 was carried out by the federal government, but they response is to simply discredit him? That wouldn't work in this situation, because after seeing this film, you supposodly supposed to be converted to the "good" side and never turn back. The government would take down a film that would prove that they murdered 3000 Americans. Hell, if they were that evil, they wouldn't need an excuse to fight terrorists in Iraq.
Are you an idiot? Pulling the film and killing the maker of it would just prove they did something wrong. Instead they have tools such as yourself to call everyone who doesn't agree with the official story "looney".

[Gremlin]

Interesting angle that people require Dylan to commit suicide with multiple gun shot wounds to the face to believe USG complicity.


Facts, smacks, who needs em, right?

[psholtz]

Gremlin wrote: Interesting angle that people require Dylan to commit suicide with multiple gun shot wounds to the face to believe USG complicity.
If that really happened, these same people STILL wouldn't believe USG complicity..

They'd still believe that Dylan Avery REALLY DID commit suicide by shooting himself in the face multiple times.. :lol:

[Patriot911]

Lets see..... IF there was a conspiracy, the people involved are facing the death penalty. Would YOU leave it up to chance that some kid nobody really knows about is out there exposing you? Of course you wouldn't. You would take care of the problem.

But then again, loose change is so chock full of lies that it takes a complete moron to believe it in the first place. Yes, I realize I called all the 9/11 deniers here who believe loose change morons. Its true. ;-)

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Lets see..... IF there was a conspiracy, the people involved are facing the death penalty. Would YOU leave it up to chance that some kid nobody really knows about is out there exposing you? Of course you wouldn't. You would take care of the problem.
No conspirator involved in 9/11 would face prosecution, much less the death penalty, in any U.S. court under maritime admirality jurisdiction.

Educate yourself about how our legal - and esp our court - system works.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: But then again, loose change is so chock full of lies that it takes a complete moron to believe it in the first place.
You realize that "Loose Change" is not the sum and total of the 9/11 Truth Movement..

In fact, it's not even 0.005% of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

There's lots and lots and lots of other information out there for you to learn from.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: No conspirator involved in 9/11 would face prosecution, much less the death penalty, in any U.S. court under maritime admirality jurisdiction.


Why not?

And why exactly would this be a maritime issue?

[Patriot911]

Yet you can't produce any of this supposed evidence. When are you going to stop hoarding this information, Psholtz? And you claiming anyone involved in 9/11 wouldn't be prosecuted is just as idiotic as most of your claims. Almost as stupid as your claim that kids in Houston are required to pledge allegience to the red white and green. :roll:

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: No conspirator involved in 9/11 would face prosecution, much less the death penalty, in any U.S. court under maritime admirality jurisdiction.


Why not?

And why exactly would this be a maritime issue?
Everything in America is under martime admiralty law.

There are no common law courts in session in this nation today.

Under martime law, judgments are made as per cost-benefit-analysis, and judgments are always rendered in such a way so as to maximize the profit flowing towards the Corporation which the admiralty courts serve.

Oliver North stole $300 billion (at least) from American taxpayers and he murdered (personally, w/ his own two hands) dozens of witnesses to his crimes during Iran-Contra. When "prosecuted" for these crimes, North is not only let go w/ a pat on his back, but he's even rewarded w/ his own show on Fox News. The reason of course is that the "upside" value of his "crimes" (keeping drug money flowing through the U.S., keeping arms sales going through Iran, etc) provided far more value to the US economy than the $300 billion in tax receipts that he stole and the lives of the witnesses he murdered.

Ted Bundy, on the other hand, murders a couple college girls, and he gets the electric chair since he just deprived the government of millions of dollars in tax receipts (measured over the lifespan of the many young women he murdered) and he has no ways and means by which he could possibly reimburse the government for the future tax revenues he stole from the government.

Now in terms of 9/11, you have the Tablian which in the matter of a couple short years was able to reduce Afghanistan's opium output to something like 5% of what it was before they took power, and you have the Taliban being stubborn about allowing gas pipelines being built in Afghanistan. The heroin thing is of course a huge no-no, since w/o the cashflow that illict drug trading provides, Wall Street would collapse overnight.. (and Wall Street was close to collapsing just before 9/11). So on the one hand, the 9/11 conspirators took the lives of 3,000 Americans. On the other hand, they were responsible for getting the heroin output from Afghanistan back up to normal, healthy levels and they were responsible for getting some important pipelines built through Afghanistan.

The upside economic "value" that the 9/11 conspirators created (in terms of increased heroin trade, increased oil flow, etc) far, far outweighs the economic value that the lives of the 3,000 Americans they murdered.

No admiralty court in America would find these conspirators guilty of anything.

If anything, the conspirators would be set up w/ their own talkshows on Fox, just like Oliver North was.

These criminals have to be prosecuted under common law, if you desire to see justice done.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Almost as stupid as your claim that kids in Houston are required to pledge allegience to the red white and green.
Here ya go:

http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=3227734224e7fb1c

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: No conspirator involved in 9/11 would face prosecution, much less the death penalty, in any U.S. court under maritime admirality jurisdiction.


Why not?

And why exactly would this be a maritime issue?
Everything in America is under martime admiralty law.

There are no common law courts in session in this nation today.

Under martime law, judgments are made as per cost-benefit-analysis.

Oliver North stole $300 billion (at least) from American taxpayers and he murdered (personally, w/ his own two hands) dozens of witnesses to his crimes during Iran-Contra. When "prosecuted" for these crimes, North is not only let go w/ a pat on his back, but he's even rewarded w/ his own show on Fox News. The reason of course is that the "upside" value of his "crimes" (keeping drug money flowing through the U.S., keeping arms sales going through Iran, etc) provided far more value to the US economy than the $300 billion in tax receipts that he stole and the lives of the witnesses he murdered.

Ted Bundy, on the other hand, murders a couple college girls, and he gets the electric chair since he just deprived the government of millions of dollars in tax receipts (measured over the lifespan of the many young women he murdered) and he has no ways and means by which he could possibly reimburse the government for the future tax revenues he stole from the government.

Now in terms of 9/11, you have the Tablian which in the matter of a couple short years was able to reduce Afghanistan's opium output to something like 5% of what it was before they took power, and you have the Taliban being stubborn about allowing gas pipelines being built in Afghanistan. The heroin thing is of course a huge no-no, since w/o the cashflow that illict drug trading provides, Wall Street would collapse overnight.. (and Wall Street was close to collapsing just before 9/11). So on the one hand, the 9/11 conspirators took the lives of 3,000 Americans. On the other hand, they were responsible for getting the heroin output from Afghanistan back up to normal, healthy levels and they were responsible for getting some important pipelines built through Afghanistan.

The upside economic "value" that the 9/11 conspirators created (in terms of increased heroin trade, increased oil flow, etc) far, far outweighs the economic value that the lives of the 3,000 Americans they murdered.

No admiralty court in America would find these conspirators guilty of anything.

If anything, the conspirators would be set up w/ their own talkshows on Fox, just like Oliver North was.

These criminals have to be prosecuted under common law, if you desire to see justice done.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Just when I think your theories can't get any more whack or your exaggerations any more outrageous, you go and prove me wrong. Thanks for the laugh! I am forwarding this post on to all my friends since I know they would never believe me if I just told them.

I already know the answer, but I will ask anyway..... can you provide ANY evidence to prove your claims? I look forward to your response.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: I am forwarding this post on to all my friends since I know they would never believe me if I just told them.
Please do..

We need to get the word out to as many people as we possibly can, before it's too late.

Please note, however, that I've modified my post since you quoted it. The third sentence should actually read: Under martime law, judgments are made as per cost-benefit-analysis, and judgments are always rendered in such a way so as to maximize the profit flowing towards the Corporation which the admiralty courts serve.

You would do well to include this modification.

[Gremlin]

Patriot911 wrote: I am forwarding this post on to all my friends.


you have friends... as in more then one?

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Almost as stupid as your claim that kids in Houston are required to pledge allegience to the red white and green.
Here ya go:

http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=3227734224e7fb1c

Thank you for proving conclusively that you lied your butt off when you claimed kids were forced to pledge allegience to the red white and green. Tell me.... did you even bother to read the article or did you just assume you knew what it was talking about?

For those who don't want to be bothered, several parent volunteers recited the Mexican pledge during an assembly. It was a one time event and no students were asked, much less required, to recite the pledge.

So lets see. Did you get ANYTHING right?

You claimed it was in Houston. Wrong. It was in Freeport.

You claimed students are forced to recite the pledge to the red white and green. Wrong on numerous counts.

No students recited the pledge.
No ongoing program is or was in place.
No mention is made in the Mexican pledge of allegiance to the colors of the flag.

So thanks for clarifying your numerous lies. I have to admit you have cajones for posting an article that proves just how much you lied and exaggerated the issue.

Care to point out where buildings and newspapers were blown up? ;-)