nickatnoon61
24-08-2007, 10:58 PM
READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP......superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
twi may,concern, Mike Conner is a moderator of the Superconsciousness Forum. He is also an ex-cop!
I will answer the first question for Bill Vincent. My biggest question to you(Mike or mc) is, why do you take the official story at face value?
It is because ex-pig(is there any such thing as an EX-pig?) Mike Conner, is a lying piece of shit traitor, to anything that is decent!!! I found that out, after only a few weeks on this forum, and told him the same! Why do the rest of you, who are truly wanting to find the truth, patronizing this piece of shit forum????? Mike Conner would only last a few days on the David Icke forum, as they do not tolerate scumbag MASONIC trolls there! It is a well-known fact, that the POLICE DEPTS.are rife with MASONS. He would be a laughing stock to anyone with more than 3 brain cells, yet those on this forum ACTUALLY DEBATE with this LIAR like it really matters, what he says!!!!! The only thing I learned in my short stay on this forum is that there are, in reality, FALSE-FLAG websites. This is (to my knowledge), the 1st one I have been involved with/experienced first-hand! It is a real eye-opener!!!! I am posting this email on the David Icke Forum , for all to see, to warn them about this forum, and what it stands for!!! What really puzzles me, is Aharya S. is the owner of this forum and is supposedly a friend of Icke's. This casts doubt, in my mind, about the credibilty of A.S. and David Icke, because I have found, that there IS guilt by association! Birds of a feather flock together! Nick.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Bill Vincent" <billjv@comcast.net>
Date: August 23, 2007 7:28:26 PM PDT (CA)
To: <superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Superconsciousness Re: Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
Reply-To: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
Mike,
My biggest question to you is, why do you take the official story at face value? You obviously are very commited to believing it. You state yourself, If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.
There are so many anomolies and aspects of this destruction that defy normal aspects of building fires and collapses that one has to stretch credibility to believe the official story. The biggest reason the 9/11 truth movement started was because of this. Many eye-witnesses spoke on news reports as it happened that there were explosions going off in sequence. There would be no time for these witnesses to somehow synchronize their stories in some kind of deceptive way for the media. There are many reporters, including Dan Rather, who actually even stated on air that it looked just like a controlled demolition. How much eye witness testimony is needed to sway the opinion of a jury? Much less than is already recorded about this event.
After the 2000 election I was convinced that our government had been taken over by a radical group of extremists who were willing to do anything to gain and keep power. They have proven time and time again that they continually feed lies to us, along with horrible deceptions, torture, war, and death. What makes you think that they would not do such a thing if it benefitted them, which it completely and totally did?
Ask yourself why all of the innocent people who survived the tower collapses would lie about the events that almost cost them their lives? Why in the world would they benefit from lying about explosions, especially only moments after the fact? The first real question you have to ask yourself is, who benefits from the lie? Who benefits from the truth?
I don't claim to know what really happened that day, but I know there is more to it than just planes and jet fuel and office fires. Lastly, buildings don't pancake into dustpiles, they pancake into flattened floors, which were nowhere to be found.
Between men and women on the street moments after the collapses happened telling the truth or this corrupt, evil administration telling the truth, I pick the men and women on the street without hesitation.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com [mailto:superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of m c
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:09 PM
To: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Superconsciousness Re: Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
The "rules" of evidence are well established and any certified police officer will have been taught and tested on them.
"The basic prerequisites of admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. In general, if evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent, and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. Evid. Code § 351; Fed. Rules Evid. 402."
http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html
And "
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility. See Evid. Code § 702(b); Fed R. Evid. 602. It consists of what is said in the court at the proceeding in question by a competent witness.
In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:
1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.
2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.
3. He must remember what he perceived.
4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1)."
The bystander on the street or watching tv has to show the relevance of his/her testimony. For someone to say that a bomb brought down the WTC they would have to demonstrate why they came to that conclusion and without evidence if what they claim, they would be deemed incompetent.
Conspiracy Theory... "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."
If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.
Were the building blown up? That remains to be proven and until then, the airplanes did it.
Mike
twi may,concern, Mike Conner is a moderator of the Superconsciousness Forum. He is also an ex-cop!
I will answer the first question for Bill Vincent. My biggest question to you(Mike or mc) is, why do you take the official story at face value?
It is because ex-pig(is there any such thing as an EX-pig?) Mike Conner, is a lying piece of shit traitor, to anything that is decent!!! I found that out, after only a few weeks on this forum, and told him the same! Why do the rest of you, who are truly wanting to find the truth, patronizing this piece of shit forum????? Mike Conner would only last a few days on the David Icke forum, as they do not tolerate scumbag MASONIC trolls there! It is a well-known fact, that the POLICE DEPTS.are rife with MASONS. He would be a laughing stock to anyone with more than 3 brain cells, yet those on this forum ACTUALLY DEBATE with this LIAR like it really matters, what he says!!!!! The only thing I learned in my short stay on this forum is that there are, in reality, FALSE-FLAG websites. This is (to my knowledge), the 1st one I have been involved with/experienced first-hand! It is a real eye-opener!!!! I am posting this email on the David Icke Forum , for all to see, to warn them about this forum, and what it stands for!!! What really puzzles me, is Aharya S. is the owner of this forum and is supposedly a friend of Icke's. This casts doubt, in my mind, about the credibilty of A.S. and David Icke, because I have found, that there IS guilt by association! Birds of a feather flock together! Nick.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Bill Vincent" <billjv@comcast.net>
Date: August 23, 2007 7:28:26 PM PDT (CA)
To: <superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Superconsciousness Re: Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
Reply-To: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
Mike,
My biggest question to you is, why do you take the official story at face value? You obviously are very commited to believing it. You state yourself, If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.
There are so many anomolies and aspects of this destruction that defy normal aspects of building fires and collapses that one has to stretch credibility to believe the official story. The biggest reason the 9/11 truth movement started was because of this. Many eye-witnesses spoke on news reports as it happened that there were explosions going off in sequence. There would be no time for these witnesses to somehow synchronize their stories in some kind of deceptive way for the media. There are many reporters, including Dan Rather, who actually even stated on air that it looked just like a controlled demolition. How much eye witness testimony is needed to sway the opinion of a jury? Much less than is already recorded about this event.
After the 2000 election I was convinced that our government had been taken over by a radical group of extremists who were willing to do anything to gain and keep power. They have proven time and time again that they continually feed lies to us, along with horrible deceptions, torture, war, and death. What makes you think that they would not do such a thing if it benefitted them, which it completely and totally did?
Ask yourself why all of the innocent people who survived the tower collapses would lie about the events that almost cost them their lives? Why in the world would they benefit from lying about explosions, especially only moments after the fact? The first real question you have to ask yourself is, who benefits from the lie? Who benefits from the truth?
I don't claim to know what really happened that day, but I know there is more to it than just planes and jet fuel and office fires. Lastly, buildings don't pancake into dustpiles, they pancake into flattened floors, which were nowhere to be found.
Between men and women on the street moments after the collapses happened telling the truth or this corrupt, evil administration telling the truth, I pick the men and women on the street without hesitation.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com [mailto:superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of m c
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:09 PM
To: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Superconsciousness Re: Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
The "rules" of evidence are well established and any certified police officer will have been taught and tested on them.
"The basic prerequisites of admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. In general, if evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent, and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. Evid. Code § 351; Fed. Rules Evid. 402."
http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html
And "
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility. See Evid. Code § 702(b); Fed R. Evid. 602. It consists of what is said in the court at the proceeding in question by a competent witness.
In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:
1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.
2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.
3. He must remember what he perceived.
4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1)."
The bystander on the street or watching tv has to show the relevance of his/her testimony. For someone to say that a bomb brought down the WTC they would have to demonstrate why they came to that conclusion and without evidence if what they claim, they would be deemed incompetent.
Conspiracy Theory... "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."
If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.
Were the building blown up? That remains to be proven and until then, the airplanes did it.
Mike