"-" <jazzerciser@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:488271f1.342072153@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> The events of that day were a heinous crime against our nation
>>> and our citizens,
>
> "Patrick Keenan" <test@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Yes they were, and most of those who perpetrated it died in the event.
>
>
> Which explains why the USA took retaliation upon those who
> were in no way related to its perpetration? ( = warcrimes, btw )
If you're referring to Afghanistan, there was in fact a solid connection,
since the ultimate leader of the plot was resident there and protected by
what was then the official Government of Afghanistan.
It's very likely that that that Government knew what he was doing, and
it's
clear that they knew what he had done and where he was, and refused to
surrender him. It's not difficult to see these as acts of war, and it's
not
remotely surprising that retaliation occurred there. The US has gone to
war for less.
As to Iraq - well, I do not believe there is any valid connection with
9/11.
Some people in authority asserted there was.
>
>
>
>>> ... and the sense of justice that exists in each one of us demands
>>> to know what really happened and how all the perpetrators will be
>>> caught and punished.
>
>> How, exactly, does the speaker propose that we catch and punish the
dead?
>
>
> She thinks that you might be involved. Turn yourself in.
A comment that in no way answers the question.
How, exactly, does the speaker propose that we catch and punish the dead?
>> The first way to understand this failure is that these people just
aren't
>> smart enough to realize that that is a far more effective way to
proceed;
>> certainly, their course of action to date has been notable for its lack
>> of
>> results.
>>
>> The second way to understand it is that they DO realize that this
avenue
>> is open to them, but that it would cause them to be wholly discredited
>> when the nsurer's investigations, though not bound by the same
>> restrictions
>> courts are, do not reach the conclusions the "9/11 truthers" say they
>> want
>> and are unable to recover the funds or prevent future payouts.
>
>
> As an insurance company would you be willing to go up against
> the style of organization, and its ferocity, which brought down
WTCs?
Yes. If you weren't aware of this, insurers are large public companies
with a lot of shareholders. They are interested in MONEY, are not easily
intimidated, and there are tens of billions of dollars at stake here,
dollars that belong to the thousands and thousands and thousands of
shareholders. The "conspiracy" carries a requirement that each and every
one of those shareholders has been intimidated by these pur****ted
conspiracists, and each and every one of them has agreed to go along with
the cover-up, and has remained silent.
Here's the thing. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people, and that number probably includes YOU if you have a pension, whose
finances have been personally harmed by these events and the need for
insurers to pay out settlements.
It's well beyond reasonable for the insurers to seek redress from people
who
were responsible, if they can be found and sued. It's well beyond
reasonable for at least SOME of the thousands and thousands and thousands
of
shareholders to show up at the AGMs and demand it.
Yet neither the insurers or shareholders do this.
It's clear to me that this is because the several investigations,
including
those already conducted by the insurers, have produced no evidence that
the "9/11 truther" claims have any validity, and specifically no evidence
of
"controlled demolition".
There isn't any evidence that explosives were brought into those buildings
by any means other than aircraft, and that explosive was basically jet
fuel.
In fact, the "9/11 truth" proponents run away from the suggestion that
they
attend the AGMs to require these cost recovery attempts, despite the fact
that it can't possibly be less effective than their current tactics.
The risk for the "9/11 truth" proponents is that it can definitively show
that their claims are fantasies, and specifically the "controlled
demolition" claim, which would be *easy* to prove.
>> This approach is not without risk, since it can lead to discrediting
the
>> "9/11 truth" concept. Perhaps they don't want to take that risk.
>>
>> Finally, this Senator says that some military officers lied to Congress
>> about their "failure to protect America". Yet she takes great care
>> to not identify them by name. Is this because she is afraid of
>> personal prosecution?
>
>
> Perhaps she is afraid of personal assassination.
Or perhaps she lacks the backbone to clearly state who it is she claims
lied
and what their lie was. It's easy to make sensational statements in a
venue that ****elds one from liability.
If she wants to claim that serving military officers lied to Congress, she
should say so.
If she believes her claims are true, and has the facts to prove it, she
has
no fear of prosecution.
>
>> I'd have to say that this Senator appears to be a few seats shy of a
>> quorum.
>
>
> I'd have to say that she is there, and we know why you're not.
Yes, and the simple reason is that I'm neither a citizen of the USA or of
the state of Arizona, and hence not eligible.
-pk
>
>
>
> - regards
> - jb
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> An Iranian Reveals True Islam
> http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5179
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
|
