no, i have more credibility than you(which doesnt take much to begin with) because i dont post the delusional bullshit you do
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court
- Thread starter Christophera
- Start date
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,362
If you weren't an agent posting what you post would be delusional because you, nor anyone, including myself, has ever posted an image of this core on 9-11
it is YOU that is delusionalIf you weren't an agent posting what you post would be delusional because you, nor anyone, including myself, has ever posted an image of this core on 9-11
because photos have been posted including ones by YOU
btw, if i actually was an "agent" like you claim, you would be dead
because if you were actually exposing the cover up that was so perfect you would be target 1 and i'd have no trouble calling in the hit on you
LOL
but since i'm NOT ana agent you are safe
but be-careful, our black copters have silencers on them
Last edited:
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,364
You are saying exactly what I said you would say, . . . not posting evidence that shows you are correct. You have no even said WHY you cannot post such an image as this core prsentyed by FEMA.
again, it is logical that i would say this because i have said it beforeYou are saying exactly what I said you would say, . . . not posting evidence that shows you are correct. You have no even said WHY you cannot post such an image as this core prsentyed by FEMA.
and it remains the truth
thats why so many are telling you that you are a fucking delusional moron, you fucking delusional moron
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,366
Confirming repeately that you have no evidence from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns of the FEMA deception shows no one is delusional, but that you have an unreasonable agenda, just like an agent serving the perpetrators would.
On the other hand there is a mass of evidence showing the concrete core.
Independently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
On the other hand there is a mass of evidence showing the concrete core.
Independently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
none of what you post is evidenceConfirming repeately that you have no evidence from 9-11 showing the supposed steel core columns of the FEMA deception shows no one is delusional, but that you have an unreasonable agenda, just like an agent serving the perpetrators would.
On the other hand there is a mass of evidence showing the concrete core.
.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,368
The perpetrators of mass murder would want people to think that.
The fact is, the evidence is solid and there are other pieces of verifiable corroborating evidence backing it. A portion of the east concrete core wall of WTC 1 toppling into the empty core.
The Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation, published in 1992. identifies a concrete core.
The fact is, the evidence is solid and there are other pieces of verifiable corroborating evidence backing it. A portion of the east concrete core wall of WTC 1 toppling into the empty core.
The Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation, published in 1992. identifies a concrete core.
no, people that are SANE DO think thatThe perpetrators of mass murder would want people to think that.
you are INSANE as proven by what you post
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,370
Are you saying you support secret methods of mass murder by not acknowledging violations of law of law that deprive the public of the building plans for the Twin Towers and 6,000 photo files, and that is not insane?
It is obvious that the Twin Towers had a concrete core.
It is obvious that the Twin Towers had a concrete core.
there were no violations of lawe you moronAre you saying you support secret methods of mass murder by not acknowledging violations of law of law that deprive the public of the building plans for the Twin Towers and 6,000 photo files, and that is not insane?
It is obvious that the Twin Towers had a concrete core.
and the towers had STEEL CORES
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,372
Are you, again, trying to present yourself as a greater legal authority than the NYCLU. Here is excerpts from their letter to Bloomberg pointing out the violations of law.
Our concern is based on the following facts, as we understand them. On or about December 24, 2001, Commissioner George Rios, on behalf of the City of New York and/or the Department of Records and Information Services of the City of New York, entered into a contract with the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc., signed by Saul Cohen, President, concerning the records of the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani. The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani’s departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract.
These provisions violate the Freedom of Information Law as interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals in Capital Newspapers, Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Whalen, 69 N.Y.2d 246 (1987).
The City also violated the Freedom of Information Law by transferring records to the custody of the Giuliani Center without first compiling a detailed list. Section 87(3)(c) of the Public Officer Law obligates an agency to maintain a “reasonably detailed list by subject matter” of all agency records, “whether or not [those records are] available under this article.” Such a list is necessary to prevent the inappropriate destruction of documents and to inform the public as to the content of the documentary collection. The list appended to the December 24th contract as Attachment A does not contain sufficiently detailed information to satisfy this requirement. And the documents appear, therefore, to have been transferred without complying with this requirement.
Finally, the City Charter vests DORIS with the responsibility to preserve and receive all city records of historical, research, cultural or other important value. City Charter, Chapter 72, § 3004(1)(c). The City Charter mandates that DORIS make all of the materials it maintains available for public inspection. §3004(2)(c). The City Charter also mandates that all records which are deemed to be of historical or research value be transferred by the city official or agency to DORIS’ municipal archives for “permanent custody.” City Charter, Chapter 49, §1133(b); RCNY §1-07. In transferring the documents to the Center, the City has violated this mandate and has made it less likely that the materials will be readily accessible for public inspection.
Our concern is based on the following facts, as we understand them. On or about December 24, 2001, Commissioner George Rios, on behalf of the City of New York and/or the Department of Records and Information Services of the City of New York, entered into a contract with the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc., signed by Saul Cohen, President, concerning the records of the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani. The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani’s departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract.
These provisions violate the Freedom of Information Law as interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals in Capital Newspapers, Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Whalen, 69 N.Y.2d 246 (1987).
The City also violated the Freedom of Information Law by transferring records to the custody of the Giuliani Center without first compiling a detailed list. Section 87(3)(c) of the Public Officer Law obligates an agency to maintain a “reasonably detailed list by subject matter” of all agency records, “whether or not [those records are] available under this article.” Such a list is necessary to prevent the inappropriate destruction of documents and to inform the public as to the content of the documentary collection. The list appended to the December 24th contract as Attachment A does not contain sufficiently detailed information to satisfy this requirement. And the documents appear, therefore, to have been transferred without complying with this requirement.
Finally, the City Charter vests DORIS with the responsibility to preserve and receive all city records of historical, research, cultural or other important value. City Charter, Chapter 72, § 3004(1)(c). The City Charter mandates that DORIS make all of the materials it maintains available for public inspection. §3004(2)(c). The City Charter also mandates that all records which are deemed to be of historical or research value be transferred by the city official or agency to DORIS’ municipal archives for “permanent custody.” City Charter, Chapter 49, §1133(b); RCNY §1-07. In transferring the documents to the Center, the City has violated this mandate and has made it less likely that the materials will be readily accessible for public inspection.
no, im not you dipshitAre you, again, trying to present yourself as a greater legal authority than the NYCLU. Here is excerpts from their letter to Bloomberg pointing out the violations of law..
i'm saying their concerns were met when the files were RETURNED
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,374
no, im not you dipshitAre you, again, trying to present yourself as a greater legal authority than the NYCLU. Here is excerpts from their letter to Bloomberg pointing out the violations of law..
i'm saying their concerns were met when the files were RETURNED
That is deceptive. The WTC documents were not returned. Agents earlier links did not describe the WTC documents of the NYC offices. Some other files were returned.
it said ALL DOCUMENTS WERE RETURNEDno, im not you dipshitAre you, again, trying to present yourself as a greater legal authority than the NYCLU. Here is excerpts from their letter to Bloomberg pointing out the violations of law..
i'm saying their concerns were met when the files were RETURNED
That is deceptive. The WTC documents were not returned. Agents earlier links did not describe the WTC documents of the NYC offices. Some other files were returned.
fucktard
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,376
then provide some corroboration by providing the name of the city office, and which official can be contacted to inquire.
I have lots of ondependently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
You need evidence of some kind. I will get plans, you tell me where it is.
No wild goose chases for me. I have lot of evidence and know for certain the towers had a concrete core. You assert this existed and can never show it on 9-11 where it would be seen IF it existed.
I have lots of ondependently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
You need evidence of some kind. I will get plans, you tell me where it is.
No wild goose chases for me. I have lot of evidence and know for certain the towers had a concrete core. You assert this existed and can never show it on 9-11 where it would be seen IF it existed.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,378
Obsolete, prelminary conceptual plans with hand lettered title blocks.
that are digitally altered to appear as final drawing by the addition of fake revision tables. They contian these digital anomalies that are impossible with scanned drawing of the scale of the pencil drawn blueprint repro.
that are digitally altered to appear as final drawing by the addition of fake revision tables. They contian these digital anomalies that are impossible with scanned drawing of the scale of the pencil drawn blueprint repro.
Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
- Aug 23, 2009
- 5,298
- 43
- Thread starter
- #3,380
Your information is not proof, it is fake and misrepresented in a lame effort to try and discount true verified evidence from independent sources.
Independently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
Independently verified evidence of the concrete core.
Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel who describes a concrete core verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work for justifying explanation for collapse, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 125
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 333
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 257
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 97
- Replies
- 642
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 10K
- Views
- 72K
- Replies
- 85
- Views
- 489
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 97
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8526
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-