-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
I forgot the massive muti million dollar insurance policy taken out on the wtc weeks before,sublime insight or an ability to see the future?
or just tipped off.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler
The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
Adolf Hitler
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler
I'm certain Mr George Bush has a copy of mein kampf under his pillow.
or just tipped off.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler
The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
Adolf Hitler
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler
I'm certain Mr George Bush has a copy of mein kampf under his pillow.
We should quit looking into all the theroies and focus on the ones that flew the planes into the buildings ..and/or...the ones that that handed down the orders to have people fly the planes into the buildings.....
Many innocent people lost their lives that day........to the families of those that were killed on 9/11......
my deepest condolences to you and yours.....may you all soon find the pease that you so richly deserve
Many innocent people lost their lives that day........to the families of those that were killed on 9/11......
my deepest condolences to you and yours.....may you all soon find the pease that you so richly deserve
Booty; please accept my most humble apology for hijacking your thread with my statement about the truthers.
I should have known better than to say that.
I should have known better than to say that.
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
its not that wer are in love with them , but we have learned our goverment and most mainstream media feed us what they want us too believe , they can no longer be trusted . by the time (if ever) the other %99 of us regular folks find out the truth its either too late to make it right or so far out of controll that rational civil action is no longer an option .
thats my opinion anyhow .
goverment of the people , by the people and for the people no longer exist in America .
its controlled by politicians and huge corporations .
this is a link to a mock interview Charlie Sheen wrote.
this interview never actually happened, but i for one would like to hear the real answers to the questions put forward.
say what you want about charlie sheen as and actor, drug addict, etc..., but this was well written and quite poignant IMO.
Twenty Minutes with the President
the so called "conspiracy theorists" are obviously not 100% sure of what happened that day, they just have questions that have not been answered.
those of you who do not question what happened that day, who believe the official story;
what makes you so sure of your position?
i would expect that anyone who can answer that question positively could also answer the questions Mr. Sheen asked.
i give the floor to anyone who feels they can back up their opinion that the official story is true.
so far, all i have heard from the "official story believers" are chides against those who dare to question our illustrious leaders.
yeah, you guys sound really patriotic. LOL
LC
op:
this interview never actually happened, but i for one would like to hear the real answers to the questions put forward.
say what you want about charlie sheen as and actor, drug addict, etc..., but this was well written and quite poignant IMO.
Twenty Minutes with the President
the so called "conspiracy theorists" are obviously not 100% sure of what happened that day, they just have questions that have not been answered.
those of you who do not question what happened that day, who believe the official story;
what makes you so sure of your position?
i would expect that anyone who can answer that question positively could also answer the questions Mr. Sheen asked.
i give the floor to anyone who feels they can back up their opinion that the official story is true.
so far, all i have heard from the "official story believers" are chides against those who dare to question our illustrious leaders.
yeah, you guys sound really patriotic. LOL
LC
op:What a physics professor thinks....
YouTube - Dr. Steven Jones on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
YouTube - Professor Steven Jones on MSNBC
The families want answers.
YouTube - Vote for Answers
YouTube - Dr. Steven Jones on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
YouTube - Professor Steven Jones on MSNBC
The families want answers.
YouTube - Vote for Answers
You seem to get it.
There is no main stream media, it's the corporate media.
All owned by mega corporations, the same that own the people that we elect to represent us.
They are owned. They want power and corporate entities fund them.
War is great for them ( corporate powers, GE, Boeing, Lockheed, and don't forget the corporation that the Bush family has money in, The Carlyle Group) and their lackeys in DC give it to them.
Here's a good read, from the 30's.
WAR IS A RACKET - Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
Written by a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor twice.
CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.
What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:
First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;
Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;
Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and
Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.
Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.
A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of 'partnership in criminal purposes,' and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of 'conspiracy' itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:
(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.
Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.
An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as 'a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.'
The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.
To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.
In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.
By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.
By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.
When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.
real patriots of this country ask questions, lots of them.
pseudo-wanna-be patriots, here are your marching orders....
CONSUME, REMAIN SILENT AND DIE.
In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.
What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:
First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;
Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;
Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and
Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.
Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.
A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of 'partnership in criminal purposes,' and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of 'conspiracy' itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:
(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.
Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.
An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as 'a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.'
The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.
To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.
In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.
By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.
By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.
When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.
real patriots of this country ask questions, lots of them.
pseudo-wanna-be patriots, here are your marching orders....
CONSUME, REMAIN SILENT AND DIE.
Patriots aren't those that swallow an "official" story, hook, line and sinker.
Our founding fathers didn't buy the "official" story that abused them.
They risked lives and fortunes for freedom. For truth.
Look at the past "false flags" our government has used or prepared to use against us.
YouTube - The Gulf of Tonkin False Flag Incident
Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/