Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court

[Christophera]

No, he said it and the reporter wrote it. Just like Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of Invention and Technology, researched it and published in 1992.

 

[DiveCon]

No, he said it and the reporter wrote it. Just like

if he had said it, the reporter would have QUOTED HIM
and since he has said your bullshit is just that, you are a fucking IDIOT

 

[Christophera]

The perps would want people to think he did not say it.



Logically, and the perps won't want that either, he said it, the reporter rephrased it, so did not quote it, he approved it. It was published.

 

[DiveCon]

The perps would want people to think he did not say it.



Logically, and the perps won't want that either, he said it, the reporter rephrased it, so did not quote it, he approved it. It was published.

logically, you support the perps
since we already know who did it and you are trying to claim lies as truth

 

[stannrodd]

Hey Chris .. who are the .. "perps" ??

A simple question .. you keep using the term .. your view would be appreciated since we should know what you are talking about .. right ?

This is about YOU versus them .. right ... !

Stann

 

[Christophera]

It does not matter who the perps are. We know they exist and you serve their interests. If that was not true then you would accept independently verified evidence that shows a concrete core because you have none for the fraudulent core the perps want people to believe existed.

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,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg]/img]

then the [url=http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif]WTC 1 east shear wall toppling[/url], consistent with [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg]interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall[/url], consistent with ground zero showing the [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1.core.wall.base.annot4.jpg]WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick[/url], all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?xmmfitynzrm]Bazant et. al 6/21/2007[/url], 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, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

 

[DiveCon]

It does not matter who the perps are. We know they exist and you serve their interests. If that was not true then you would accept independently verified evidence that shows a concrete core because you have none for the fraudulent core the perps want people to believe existed.

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 contracted 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, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

dipshit
what a fucking IDIOT

why do you keep posting the proven LIES
because you are a FUCKING IDIOT

 

[slackjawed]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg]/img]

then the [url=http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif]WTC 1 east shear wall toppling[/url], consistent with [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg]interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall[/url], consistent with ground zero showing the [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1.core.wall.base.annot4.jpg]WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick[/url], all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?xmmfitynzrm]Bazant et. al 6/21/2007[/url], which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. [B][SIZE="7"][COLOR="Cyan"]It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B].[/QUOTE]

[quote="Christophera, post: 2269602"][B][COLOR="DarkOrange"][SIZE="6"]It does not matter who the perps are. We know they exist and you serve their interests. If that was not true then you would accept independently verified evidence that shows a concrete core because you have none for the fraudulent core the perps want people to believe existed[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B].

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/]Robertson[/url] is verified by [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg]Oxford,[/url] verifying [url=http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf]Domel[/url] who describes a concrete core verified by the image of [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif]WTC 2 core[/url], verifying the [url=http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg]top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3[/url], the [url=http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg]WTC 1 rebar[/url], just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view,

:party:



classic agent chri$$y sales pitch rhetoric


very amusing thread this one has become


Did anyone else notice that from reading the "court filing documents" agent chri$$y posted that he did not pay the filing fees?


just wondering if anyone else noticed a pattern here



aggent chri$$y is as dumb as a
|
|
|
V

 

[DiveCon]

classic agent chri$$y sales pitch rhetoric


very amusing thread this one has become


Did anyone else notice that from reading the "court filing documents" agent chri$$y posted that he did not pay the filing fees?


just wondering if anyone else noticed a pattern here



aggent chri$$y is as dumb as a
|
|
|
V

actually, those look like they have a useful purpose
can't say the same for dipshit

 

[slackjawed]

classic agent chri$$y sales pitch rhetoric


very amusing thread this one has become


Did anyone else notice that from reading the "court filing documents" agent chri$$y posted that he did not pay the filing fees?


just wondering if anyone else noticed a pattern here



aggent chri$$y is as dumb as a
|
|
|
V

actually, those look like they have a useful purpose
can't say the same for dipshit

point taken

 

[slackjawed]

better?

 

[DiveCon]

better?

yes

 

[Fizz]

No, he said it and the reporter wrote it.

proof please.

 

[Fizz]

he approved it.

proof please.

It was published.

proof please. what issue of newsweek does this appear in?

 

[Christophera]

The proof is here,

September 13, 2001

Published globally.

Completely consistent with all other independent sources 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 contracted 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, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

 

[Christophera]

Since there is no reasonable explanation for what this is except for concrete,

it is concrete. Done deal, completely consistent with all other evidence from independent sources.

 

[DiveCon]

The proof is here,

no proof

 

[Christophera]

The proof is in the consistency with all of the other independently verified evidence.

It is logical that the perpetrators would not allow you to acknowledge such things no matter how obvious they are to reasonable observers.

The WTC 2 core for example.

It can actully be nothing but concrete, just like Robertson says.

 

[DiveCon]

The proof is in the consistency with all of the other independently verified evidence.

It is logical that the perpetrators would not allow you to acknowledge such things no matter how obvious they are to reasonable observers.

The WTC 2 core for example.



It can actully be nothing but concrete, just like Robertson says.

liar, Robertson never said any such thing

 

[Christophera]

The reporter WROTE the article based on what Robertson said.

MSNBC - ?Painful and Horrible?

And what is seen at ground zero confirms it.

The massive concrete base wall of WTC 1.