Tuesday 23 June 2015

HAMPSTEAD CHILD ABUSE CASE:
SOME MUSINGS ON A REJECTED APPEAL .
Tim Veater.
For those following this most disturbing case of alleged child abuse and the way it has been handled by the authorities, the recent news that an appeal from the decision of HHJ Pauffley in the family division of the High Court, has been refused, comes as yet another unbelievable set-back.

More detailed information on the case can be viewed here:


If the reader is unaware of the case, the basic facts are these: two young siblings – a boy and girl of eight and nine – alleged in numerous videoed interviews to different people at different times, including six police interviews, that they had been seriously abused by their father and a group of teachers and parents, based on the church and primary school known as Christ Church, Hampstead. This was neither hollow or inconsequential with multiple supporting personal and locational information told in a transparently honest manner.

When these were brought to the attention of the police at Barnett Police Station on Friday 5th September, 2014 the children were brought in for questioning that lasted until well past eleven at night. When the seriousness and apparent voracity of the claims became clear, the interviews were abruptly suspended for consultations on the best way to proceed.

They were reconvened on the 11th September, when very strangely it must be said the same male detective police constable again interviewed both children who repeated and expanded on their horrific experiences. ‘Strangely’, on several counts: first because despite time to prepare and an earlier specific mention, no adult ‘friend’ or representative was provided to support the children and witness what was happening; second because a male officer was interviewing a young vulnerable girl; third the Met. has specialists in child abuse that were not brought in; fourth the videos prove that these were evidentially sham interviews that were not interested in following up specific ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘how’ questions; fifth, the decision had already been taken two days previously, not conveyed to either children or mother, to apply for a Police Protection Order that had the effect of removing the children to local authority ‘care’, from which after nine months, they have still not been returned!

This unnecessary and deceitful action was taken by the Police Inspector who had been appointed to head a team of experienced serious crime officers including five detective sergeants who came it seems from Colindale Police Station – not it should be noted the Met’s child abuse team – despite objections from a Camden specialist social worker. It was unnecessary because the children made no complaint about their mother with whom they had a residence order from a previous court hearing. All their allegations focused on their father and others from whom they were protected at that stage.

(The police ‘CRIS’ report can be found here:


The inhumane decision to remove them from their only secure environment, was then compounded by giving access to the one who for good reason, they had a mortal fear – their father, who it should be noted has a very dubious past business, social and violent record.
All this and much more is quite inexplicable from a human or rational point of view but what makes it even worse, if that were possible, is the way in which the family courts have dealt with the matter, first in the County Court, then the High Court and now latterly by a decision to refuse an appeal, despite abundant evidence it is both deserved and essential.

On the face of it, it appears injustice piled on injustice; inhumanity on inhumanity; cover-up on cover-up.

Serious efforts have been made to prevent the Russian mother being represented in court and she was forced to flee the country as a result of a heavy handed police attempt to arrest her; her ‘Makenzie Friend’ has similarly been forced to flee on threat of immediate arrest; the authorities attempted to censor any attempt at fair reporting and to wipe all Youtube material; the newspapers and BBC were somehow persuaded to replicate a clearly unbalanced and prejudiced judgement; recently the children’s unimpeachable and educated grand-parents have even been denied access unless they concur with the judgement – a clear case of official blackmail.

This miscarriage of justice has been replicated and exacerbated by the recent refusal to allow an appeal.

At this point I am rather afraid I am on less firm ground, as I have not been provided with further details or viewed the transcript. All I have is that the decision was taken by a judge by the name of ‘Black’. Clearly we shall have to await his/her reasoning for the decision and whether it was made by the High Court or Court of Appeal.

In the meantime I have located three judges by that name, any of whom may be the person referred to: His Honour Judge Jonathan Black sitting as a Crown Court Judge in Basildon (so it unlikely to be him); Her Honour Judge Black sitting it would seem in the Portsmouth family court; or, and I think most likely Her Honour Lady Justice Black who sits in the Court of Appeal. The latter would appear to have been the most likely on the available information to have been the person responsible for turning down the appeal.

(If I am wrong I make fulsome apology for misleading and being misled, however without deciding on the matter, information in the public domain, is not without its interest or application to the Hampstead case.)

First as regards Her Honour Judge Black, she appears to have attracted a certain degree of criticism. In 2010 for some reason she was given (spoof I assume?) the “Paul Randle-Jolliffe Britain’s Worst Family Judge Awards 2010. October 7, 2010 nominated Her Honour Judge Black Portsmouth”


This may have had something to do with a much more serious and important matter, when one of her decisions was criticised and overturned by the Court of Appeal the following year namely, LADY JUSTICE SMITH and LORD JUSTICE WILSON overturned and criticised her decision to give contact to the father at his mother’s house.

See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed87298 
Case No: B4/2011/0302
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 1147
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(HER HONOUR JUDGE BLACK)
(Lower Court No: PO10F01088/P00474)

Their comments were particularly applicable to the Hampstead case, where it would appear analogous mistakes have been made and therefore may be of assistance in any appeal, insofar as they are binding on lower courts, in the Hampstead case. In particular judgements made on the placement of children without the opportunity of giving the mother adequate notice or seeking her considered opinion; or of properly taking into account the previous (criminal) history of the person with whom the child was to be placed, neither of which have been fulfilled in the Hampstead case. The relevant excerpts are reproduced below.

“21. The solicitor who represented the mother before the judge and who is present in court today, sitting behind Ms Magee of counsel, realistically and courageously accepts that, in retrospect, her advocacy was insufficiently robust. I hope that it is not impertinent for me to suggest that she might have made a final submission along these lines:

Your Honour I respectfully submit, with all the force at my command, that it would be wrong at this juncture for your Honour to vary the arrangements for contact so as to make the grandmother the supervisor or supporter of contact. I rely on the following 13 features:”

(1) it was agreed between the parties as recently as at the hearing on 20 September 2010 that contact needed to be supervised at a contact centre;
(2) my client’s statement, to which I have already referred in passing and which I hope that you may have had time to read, raises serious issues of domestic violence against the father but also issues of collusion on the part of the grandmother with the father which would, if established, make her an entirely inappropriate supervisor of contact;
(3) it is (I suggest) important to note that, long before any proposal was made that the grandmother would be an appropriate supervisor of contact, my client was, in that statement, making allegations against the grandmother which turn out to be highly relevant to that very issue;
(4) the father has never filed a statement, whether by himself or by the grandmother, in answer to my client’s statement;
(5) the police have seen fit to charge the father with offences of assault, including indecent assault, upon my client and we understand that they are due to be heard in less than three months’ time;
(6) it was agreed between the parties at the hearing on 20 September that the father should take part in an anger management course and a domestic violence perpetrators’ programme but he has not yet begun to do so;
(7) this hearing was set up by the district judge simply as a review of contact and I had no notice that at it there was to be any suggestion of a change in the nature of the supervision of contact;
(8) in particular I had no notice, prior to walking into your Honour’s court, that my friend was intending today to contend that the grandmother should become the supervisor or supporter of contact;
(9) I have had no time in which to prepare cross-examination of the grandmother and no statement has been filed by her by reference to which I might have taken instructions and formulated my questions;
(10) only 30 minutes have been allotted for this hearing and such has been an entirely inappropriate period in which for us to argue, still less for your Honour to determine, what is an important point in relation to the safety of T during contact;
(11) your Honour has, with respect, had no time even to hear from my client about her concerns and, in particular, to hear her cross-examined by my friend if and insofar as, which is unclear, the father disputes the matters contained in her statement dated 25 August;
(12) as your Honour so well appreciates, where there is a history of substantial domestic violence, the question whether contact arrangements will generate anxiety and distress for the mother, indirectly damaging for the child, is itself an important feature, which your Honour has today had no time to address; and
(13) your Honour’s own, few, questions of the grandmother uncovered a bombshell, namely that her former husband had sexually abused — or as she said in evidence had ‘apparently sexually abused’ her two daughters and that she had been cleared; on any view the sexual abuse of two daughters in her home raises serious questions about her ability to act as a protector of children in her care or temporary care; and the suggested enquiries into whether the grandmother has previous criminal convictions, or indeed whether, now that the former husband has left the home, the local authority are presently involved in relation to the daughters, would in no way answer them.”

The result was that the Court of Appeal judges overturned Justice Black’s decision and criticised both it and the mother’s legal representative with these words:

“22. Yes, such is along the lines of what the advocate might in retrospect have submitted. But this circuit judge is extremely experienced, and highly respected, in the despatch of family proceedings. Her function under the Act of 1989 was quasi-inquisitorial. Irrespective of the abilities, on the day, of the publicly funded solicitor to collect her thoughts so as to present argument to her along those lines, the circuit judge ought to have been well aware of the sort of arguments which I have collected above. The fact is that, notwithstanding the very wide discretion which she enjoyed in relation to varying the arrangements for the father’s contact with T and to her very conduct of the investigation into the issue (see the classic exposition of Butler-Sloss LJ in Re B Minors Contact [1994] 2 FLR 1 at 5F-H), the judge in my view went well outside the boundary of her discretion in allowing the grandmother to become the supervisor or supporter of contact in the above circumstances, taken together. The judge simply failed to weigh at all many of the relevant considerations.

23. I would allow the appeal and direct that, until the hearing on 5 May, which with respect should in the circumstances not be conducted by the circuit judge, the arrangements for contact at a contact centre should remain in force. Were my Lady to agree with this disposal, we should no doubt hear argument in relation to whether it should be the centre in Havant, in Waterlooville or indeed in Portsmouth itself.”

Lady Justice Smith added this pertinent observation: “In short the judge’s willingness to change the basis of the agreed contact to a basis which was not agreed and without any real evidential investigation of the mother’s objections and concerns was a step much too far. These issues were not in my judgment suitable for summary disposal.”

Let us hope this is a glimmer of hope for the Hampstead appeal.
Now as to HHLady Justice Black I found this that may or not be relevant to the present case. She has apparently voiced concern regarding the additional workload imposed on judges by virtue of litigants appearing in person or with ‘McKenzie Friends’.

(See: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/litigants-in-person-make-life-infinitely-more-difficult/1/5041178.article?PageNo=2&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=10#comments )

In this particular discussion there appears to be a lot of dissatisfaction from within the legal profession itself, tending to blame a complacent judiciary and government for the present situation.

Anonymous comments on the 9 May 2014 12:09 pm:

“Well, the chickens are coming home to roost ! All those New Labour judges must be regretting their slavish adoration for Tony and his mates who brought this all on us. The days of solicitors for the parents and social workers and guardian ad litems coming to an agreement at the gates of the court and presenting a fait accompli to the judiciary are gone. The judges now have to do “the heavy lifting”. They jumped into “the purple lifeboat” for a relaxed and magisterial overview not to get their hands dirtied with solicitors work. I don’t think this situation is tenable at all. Sooner or later a judge is going to find a way of appointing and paying solicitors out of state coffers to help LIPs and that will be much more expensive than legal aid.”

Michael Martin10 May 2014 12:41 pm contributed this pithy observation:

Oh, right, Paul Howard. How stupid of me to think that the ‘justice’ system is for the benefit of citizens and not the convenience of practitioners. But then, my cynicism about our incomparable, millennial system that I learnt about at school nearly 60 years ago has declined ever since, and not for sour grapes reasons. It is precisely the plight of children that is most egregious and entirely the fault of our senior judiciary. I couldn’t believe it when I discovered that children, almost always without funds, were not automatically entitled – by judicial decision at common law, before there was legal aid, for which they are still dependent on an adult – to representation. Judicial acceptance of this is contemptuous. How can they assert/accept that a convicted foreign criminal has a right to representation (ECHR?) but not a child? It is, of course, utterly depressing that Liberty and Justice and even those voluntary, let alone official, organisations set up to represent or help children seem utterly unconcerned about it. Once again, the defenders of animals are readier and louder in their protests than are those of children.”

If it is true as has been reported, that the latest appeal against the Pauffley judgement has been rejected, it is final confirmation that Family Courts have failed in their task to apply the law fairly and do JUSTICE, not to mention as Michael Martin suggests above, have catastrophically failed the children into the bargain. The sooner this stain upon metropolitan policing and British justice is admitted and corrected, the better it will be for all concerned. Until it is, the stain will only get larger, darker and more indelible.END.

Monday 22 June 2015

NEW WAYS TO HAMPSTEAD

Tim Veater

I have been reading an excellent book. It is titled ‘The Old Ways’ by Robert MacFarlane and recounts many of his walks across England, Scotland, France, Palestine, and Nepal, some of them in the steps of Edward Thomas, poet and traveller. Thomas left his last footprint on Easter Monday 1917 on the first day of the Battle of Arras. Just another life snuffed out in an episode that proved the total stupidity of human-kind. Nothing that has happened since encourages us to think it has learned anything.

Last week when coming-to after an evening doze, as dusk was falling like a cloak, I was startled by a dull thud against the glazing. When I looked out I witnessed the last living – or dying – moments of a Swallow, that perhaps inexperienced, had made the fatal decision to dive between oak posts, unaware of the transparent silicon barrier that would interrupt its air-slicing revelrie. Swallow flight somehow epitomises the joyful essence of life and freedom.

I rushed outside and cupped it in my hand and hoped for a miracle, but despite being still warm, its independent contribution to aerial display was at an end, and although unseen and unknown by the world, it constituted a very real loss.

The Robert MacFarlane book is a wonderful evocation of the interconnectedness of life that happens, is happening, all around us, all the time, of which we are quite unaware. Every living creature shares this paradoxical experience of autonomy and interdependence. We are all ‘conscious’ of ourselves, whilst ‘others’ pass through’ registered by our five senses and eliciting emotional responses. The individual Starling, in a ‘murmuration’ of sweeping and turning, almost like demonic smoke, possesses an innate, intuitive, survival instinct and life force that is inexplicable.

The arrogance of humanity, particularly ‘post-scientific rational humanity’ if there is such a thing, sees itself as detached and superior, able to use and abuse nature and fellow creatures – even fellow travellers – to its own advantage, and damn the consequences. It is an arrogance we frequently see in big business, politicians, government and even the law. We see it when animals are experimented on in their millions, it is said for human advantage. We see it when the air and sea is polluted without compunction. When the aquifers and pristine environments are polluted in a search for ‘cheap’ fossil fuel. We see it in modern intensive farming and husbandry, when animal welfare and the intricacies of nature are abandoned to greed and profit.

We see it when men who claim to be leaders make decisions that involve death, destruction and misery for their fellow man, and present it triumphantly as laudable. As I think Wellington – hardly the most empathetic of men – commented, “There is only one misery worse than defeat – and that is victory.”

MacFarlane quotes one of Thomas’ poems thus:

And heavy is the tread
Of the living; but the dead
Returning lightly dance:

Whatever the roads bring
To me or take from me,
They keep me company
With their pattering

Crowding the solitude
Of the loops over the downs,
Hushing the roar of the towns
And their brief multitude.

It seems to me that humans, capable of great thought and moral reasoning can also be guilty of losing it to selfishness, power and dark institutional forces. It can result in losing touch with a deep and pervading philosophy that accepts we are part of a wider complex, remarkable and unique planet. Lovelock’s spirit of ‘Gaia’. It is a philosophy. It is an attitude. It is a way of behaving.

It is also inimitable to the behaviour of ‘judges’, officials and others witnessed in the ‘Hampstead case’ where humanity and natural affection has been replaced with hard, cold, insensitivity – something any individual still connected to nature, must find deeply repellant.

Perhaps poets and composers best sum up the mood and sentiment, as in one of William Blake’s famous poems:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

A Robin Redbreast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage.
A dove house fill’d with doves and pigeons
Shudders Hell thro’ all its regions.

A Dog starv’d at his Master’s Gate
Predicts the ruin of the State.
A Horse misus’d upon the Road
Calls to Heaven for Human blood.

Each outcry of the hunted Hare
A fiber from the Brain does tear.
He who shall train the Horse to War
Shall never pass the Polar Bar.

The Beggar’s Dog and Widow’s Cat,
Feed them and thou wilt grow fat.
The Gnat that sings his Summer song
Poison gets from Slander’s tongue.

The poison of the Snake and Newt
Is the sweat of Envy’s Foot.
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.

It is right it should be so;
Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro’ the World we safely go.

Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.

The battle for decency continues and only such as we, ordinary but extraordinary individuals, unconnected but connected by a common humanity and concern, can take it to the enemy – pacifically.

Arvo Part’s “Spiegel im Spiegel’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtFPdBUl7XQ.

'The Old Ways' by Robert MacFarlane. Penguin. 2013.

Saturday 20 June 2015

9/11 and the TOWER OF BABEL


A discussion on how conspiracy theory collapses.

From: https://plus.google.com/113930187829586276202/posts/icmqUpPHYEH?cfem=1

Tim Veater
10 Feb 2015
 
 
Yup - I noticed that "Ben - You in a heap of trouble boy!" too. What you didn't point out was how, in only a couple of days, it had appeared. Bin Laden, despite there being no evidence to connect him (even now) had been identified as the evil perpetrator. Doesn't this remind you of JFK and many other set-ups? If not it should do. Its all part of a text-book operation to deflect attention from the real criminals. And by God it worked a treat..
inacarjam
15 Feb 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
Just like with Kennedy..How many of Bin Laden trained killers were arrested after this so called terror attack? Why wasn't Bin Laden ever charged legally for this so called terror attack called 9/11. Same parasites back then pulled off this so called terror attack..The Kennedy house is only down the street from where I live..Sucks knowing his family has been thru some really F'D up things all these years..He never deserved to be murdered in that way...I still think these monstrous parasites who had him killed are all alive and kicking..
Mark Cob
17 Feb 2015
+
5
4
5
 
 
OBL died in Dec 2001 due to crappy health, yes AmeriKa....We, The People have been had and played for suckers ....9/11 was a Mossad Job!!!
inacarjam
19 Feb 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
Mr.Cobb? On YouTube this young scientist had the balls to post this one video.Tell us what you see on this one video PLEASE..Forget the words..Forget how crazy the words please view on YouTube..( Dustification of WTC 1 & WTC 2 Explained..Posted by wordgeezer..This one video is monstrous but true..Sinister but yet true..How could our won populace be so ignorant since day one..The 2nd and 3rd laws of motions were thrown out the window on this day..Any idiot can view any media outlet that taped those so called pancake collapse and realize its bullshit.The buildings were disintegrated..Disintegrated Into Dust...Check out this video..Thanks..
Tim Veater
19 Feb 2015
+
5
6
5
 
 
+inacarjam What the politicians do not realise (or perhaps they do?) the waters have receded since 9/11, leaving them somewhat high and dry. Eventually they may twig that the only rope ladder available to get them down safely is to admit it was all a pack of lies. If and when they do, stand back and watch the fireworks! Perhaps that's why Jebb is being parachuted in to stem the flow, to stop the rot, to protect the family firm? 
Mark Cob
19 Feb 2015
+
4
5
4
 
 
pancake collapse theory's been abandoned by NIST...even they realized nobody's falling for that silly shit....not a fan of the judy wood theory either. just glad it's getting debated and questioned cuz once ya look, ya know it's a lie ;)
Raymond Duncan
26 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam The FBI said they didn't have any proof that OBL was connected, so they couldn't legitimately charge him.
FactChecking101
27 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan - you are cherry picking to tell lies.  "FBI Spokesman Richard Kolko in a 2007 statement "As the FBI has said since 9/11, bin Laden was responsible for the attack," Kolko said in a statement. "In this latest tape, he again acknowledged his responsibility. This should help to clarify for all the conspiracy theorists, again — the 9/11 attack was done by bin Laden and al-Qaida."
Raymond Duncan
27 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
And you are twisting the facts!
   The question was why wasn't OBL charged with 911 and my comment was that someone at the FBI said they had jackshit on him. I'll look for the FBI source of that statement. And yes, I know, the person wasn't speaking as an FBI official source, but as an insider, and someone in that position can know a lot.
   Accusing someone of something doesn't equate to evidence. I'm surprised I have to point that out. If they had anything to back that up, charges would have followed. Even at the county level, the DA won't allow that kind of thing.
   Additionally, in 2013, the chief prosecutor of the military tribunal said that he would not pursue charges of conspiracy or terrorism against  Khalid Sheik Mohammed ("acknowledged 9/11 mastermind" as he was called) or the other four of the "9/11 Five" held at Gitmo. No evidence? I'd say so. What other reason could there be except to avoid opening up a dangerous can of worms for not prosecuting THE MASTER MIND of 911? The only thing left to try them for would be the actual carrying out of the acts and that would be dead at the start.
    How 'bout them cherries?


EDIT: As far as any taped "confessions", a simple look at the person alleged to be OBL compared to the man known to be OBL, tosses that crap right out of the window.
FactChecking101
27 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan - Toofers are such simpletons just waiting to be spoon fed lies.  The FORMER FBI person who said that wasn't even an agent.  He was refuted by the FBI.

You don't CHARGE someone with a crime until they are in custody, so that's settled.

Please show me where they dropped the conspiracy charges or are you just insinuating they did as another twoofer tale.
Raymond Duncan
27 Mar 2015
 
 
Go argue with Ed Haas. Your wonderful insight is wasted here at YT. You know it's beneath you to waste your precious wisdom here don't you.

Ed writes:

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Edited: For the full article, see :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
FactChecking101
27 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan Everything you just quoted has been contradicted by the FBI.  He was wanted for 911.  He was ALREADY on the top ten most wanted and 911 was covered under the statement that he was wanted for additional terrorist acts.

Now, I don't know why you keep running away to a new statement.  Let's finish with the military.  Please show me where they have dropped the conspiracy charges.
Raymond Duncan
27 Mar 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
+FactChecking101  You've become quite a crashing bore. Now, be a dear and fix Daddy another martini.
FactChecking101
27 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan - so you've realised I have trapped you in a lie and you're acting out?

Now, I don't know why you keep running away to a new statement.  Let's finish with the military.  Please show me where they have dropped the conspiracy charges.
Raymond Duncan
27 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
As I said, go argue with Ed. You'd be the first to comment! You'd make us so proud!!
   Now, you are so adorable, son, in your valiant efforts to keep the truth hidden. But, as I said, you are a crashing bore and Daddy still wants that martini and go easy on the vermouth this time. Now, scoot!
FactChecking101
27 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan - You're the only one trying to hide anything.

Seeing as you will never be able to prove your lie, I will do ahead and expose it for you.

The ARMY prosecutor asked to have the conspiracy charges dropped because conspiracy isn't a crime by international law.  It had NOTHING to do with not having enough evidence.

Oooooooh... spooky insider stuff there!  The Pentagon refused his request by the way, so the charges were NOT dropped.

Your ENTIRE argument was based on just another twoofer tale.
inacarjam
28 Mar 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
+FactChecking101 Your clearly a expert on facts and evidence about what happened on Sept 11th,2001..My resume speaks for itself after serving decades in the U.S. military and several demolition companies here in the states and Great Britain. The person who has this YouTube channel is my boss and has several people posting all types of theories and shot-out claims on what really happened on Sept 11th, 2001. I don't care about who is wrong or right about the events on that day. Your old enough to view something and realize what is Self Evident and have the ability to recognize the obvious. I stumbled across a video I would never usually view ever but this video is truly stuffed with undisputed facts and evidence a technology not known to even me or my friends who own demo companies. They viewed this video and couldn't believe how much evidence was caught and ignored..You'll see in the first minute...Posted on YouTube..( NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clip of 01-49 WTC Complex & WTC 7 After 10:28)  Let the people who argue and blast each other on who is wrong or right just view the video..As I stated just the first minute if your qualified you'll know just how ugly this evidence all around truly is...DC from S.Africa...  
Mark Cob
28 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam ...lol...good one inacarjam...drummer???...me too
Mark Cob
28 Mar 2015
 
 
+Raymond Duncan u poor blind bastiche, what FEMA Region u live in so i can send condolences to ur family?? 
Mark Cob
28 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 dont waste ur time on the blinded tv idiot there FactChecker101, that one's beyond hope, let the FEMA Camps have their way w/ this one ;) Ol Ray's been Hypno Toaded by the MSM couz ;)
FactChecking101
28 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam - No, your resume doesn't speak for itself.  The only things that speak for themselves are you inability to use paragraphs and the evidence.

Nothing in that video supports CD.  Nothing.
inacarjam
28 Mar 2015
 
 
Your a regular riot Alice..Nothing in that video..You mean this one video Mr.Finding? ( 911-WTC Core Spire Vaporized: Raw 360 Degree Visual Evidence;)  Self Evident video footage..OK 101...
FactChecking101
28 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam - No, twooftard, I mean the video ( NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clip of 01-49 WTC Complex & WTC 7 After 10:28)

Let's not jump from twoofer tale to twoofer tale, let's set down the mountain dew and focus, OK?

What in that video is evidence of anything other than progressive gravitational collapse? 
inacarjam
29 Mar 2015
 
 
Progressive Gravitational Collapse? Mountain Dew? 1st. You don't know me from a can of paint..2nd. I haven't had a soda in over 40 years.3rd. Failure on your part to recognize the obvious is your own undoing.4th. After serving for the U.S. military for decades I used that knowledge to get to work for some of the best demolition companies on this planet. SVCS Nottingham Explosives,P.Vittenboogaard,Demolition Dynamics, and my last one was the Loizeaux Group LLC. Their 60 years of experience and 3 generations of great family members who work there are a great bunch..5th. You can spew any wild inaccurate assumptions you feel is necessary to get a rise out of someone.Perhaps you could get in touch with these experts and they will talk off the record off course..If you care about the events that happened on that day get in touch with these experts..The National Demolition Association,International Society Of Explosive Engineers,Institute of Explosive Engineers,or the European Demolition Association..I even have their phone # on hand..1-410667-6610.. Each agency would actually talk to a real person interested about the events on 9/11. Totally off the record and only in person..You perhaps you know my past bosses email address so email them and ask them about 9/11. cdi @ controlled-demolition dot com..You are old enough and wise enough to have someone with expert knowledge sit down and talk to you correct? Email that site or try tlg  @ loizeauxgroup dot com..Just like with any crime even mass murder its only what one can prove..With that being stated you sir can view just one video and grasp the reality of what your viewing that really happened to the twin towers on 9/11. This MIT college educated young man posted this video for just that reason..You break down the facts and events happening in this one video..{911-WTC Core Spire Vaporized: Raw 360 Degree Visual Evidence:} Progressive Gravitational Collapse? Like with any laws in nature thrown out the window on 9/11 what brought down those towers in 18-20 seconds each? Your progressive Gravitational Collapse include wtc #7?  Or the outer wall at the pentagon? Yeah you gotta get that done took care of..In 10 lifetimes you couldn't even extrapolate my accolades and accomplishments before I even turned 35..So sell your soul stunting shot out childish rants to someone who cares..OK FUCKFACE,,,By the way don't bother to get back to our boss..He just left the room and besides you wouldn't want your neck straightened would you? So avoid getting your much deserved green light attached to your ass...Don't bother to send any messages..WE would never let our boss ever read any of your cock and bull again..Your parents and family and friends must think your the pride of the litter correct? We betting even money your parents regret years ago to not have either flushed or have you swallowed.. Oh by the way we did some fact checking 101 about you...What can you do for a encore? DON'T WASTE YOUR VALUABLE TIME TYPING BACK TO US..YOUR BLOCKED...OK THERE GUN POWDER..
inacarjam
29 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
Mr.!01 having such expert knowledge about the events on 9/11 could you tell us how vehicles parked blocks away ended up being incinerated..There is around 30 vehicles parked in a parking lot over 4 blocks away from ground zero totally incinerated..Missing door handles,bumpers,lights,windows and windshields,engines melted into blobs of metal..We know you have viewed those vehicles before correct? Dust clouds that incinerate vehicles? Fire jumped from inside the ground zero collapse to streets blocks away? 
FactChecking101
29 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam I'm sorry, I can't take a person seriously who can't use paragraphs.  Besides, you are just parroting the same old tired lies.
KbcBerlin
29 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101
You are the liar here . The worse kind , you lie to yourself.
What a joke, trying to win some kind of stupid point about "paragraphs.  
FactChecking101
29 Mar 2015
 
 
+KbcBerlin - He's parroting easily exposed lies like dust spires and his lack of ability to use paragraphs exposes him as a fraud.
inacarjam
29 Mar 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 We had you in our cross hairs all along..Avoid the facts and spew other pointless subjects. You gotta get that done took care..Your a fuck'n national disgrace..Fact Checking 101? Have you ever read the countless messages other YouTube customers leave for you?  You would deny smelling feces on your nose cause you can't see with your own eyes. Isn't your time more valuable ranting to your fans in secondary school. Any subject with 9/11 should only be for adults. The only fraud is you using the words FACT CHECKING..Fraud? Your government federal agencies released this video you can't extrapolate..This one video basically destroys any comment or wild assumption you think happened on 9/11.  Must Suck RIGHT! ONE VIDEO YES THIS VIDEO..{ 911-WTC Core Spire Vaporized: Raw 360 Degree Visual Evidence:}  Parrot those images...FUCKFACE... 
FactChecking101
29 Mar 2015
 
 
+inacarjam - Um, wow, you mean you are promoting cherry picked videos?  Who would have thought a paragraph-less twoofer would be so deceptive?

Instead of cherry picking videos, let's go straight to the best angle and highest quality, don't forget to go full screen:

https://youtu.be/W2ivj9uJKbw?t=1h59s

You can see the spire through the dust all the way down.  You see, we don't have to use grainy edited and hand selected video to know the truth!  Amazing!

There are no CD experts that believe the twin towers were CD.  None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If you weren't an idiot twooftard, you might even realize you can post links.  Of course, that would mean changing all of your paragraph-less cut and paste responses, but well worth the effort!
inacarjam
29 Mar 2015
 
 
AHhhh the person your pissing up a rope with has left the building..Just leave that person alone before you have a green light permanently painted on ya...Your expert advice and talent must be needed in some other 3 world toilet...You are old enough to leave well enough alone...Go create some new inventions with NANO or Graphene Technology..Or go haunt a house just FUCK OFF>>>Or you will get GOT..LIKE THAT SENTENCE STRUCTURE..WOW YUR SHOT OUT.. 
Tim Veater
10 Apr 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 I suppose you also believe a large commercial jet "vaporised" at Shanksville?
Tim Veater
10 Apr 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 I suppose you also believe a large commercial aircraft "vaporised" at Shanksville?
Tim Veater
11 Apr 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
I only ask because that's the OFFICIAL US Government explanation!
KbcBerlin
11 Apr 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater There was some talk of it disappearing down an old mine shaft ! ?! You have to give them some marks for creativity when covering up. Experienced, and professional liars have to be good.

Have you ever heard of a plane crash on land where they just gave up on finding most of the plane ?
Tim Veater
11 Apr 2015
 
 
As we all now know (well most of us anyways) officials who attended the scene as first responders are on record as stating there was NO plane wreckage at the scene. NONE! ZILCH! 
FactChecking101
11 Apr 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater - False.  There are 12,000 pages of first responder testimony filled with accounts of seeing the planes and debris.
inacarjam
19 Apr 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
+Tim Veater 12K pages? Where is these pages and can one acquire through the FOIA? What anyone can easily do with very little effort if they dispute any event that happened on 9/11 is research. 57  minutes and a concrete and steel office tower disintegrates into dust in mid air? View any Las Vegas Casino being demolished aka imploded..Do you see any structure turning into dust or symmetrical ejection of building materials at great speeds until the entire structure hits the ground..Remember not one explosive device was used to destroy these office towers correct?  Please note this isn't about who is wrong or right..Its about a entire population failure to recognize the obvious..Like most educated people..They have never ever viewed a building coming down in that fashion.EVER..It didn't happen just once but twice within two hours of each other..What's the odds..One subject should be paramount is a LIE...Just like with any murder case one lie opens the flood gates of suspicion and ultimately finding the murderer..Our own citizens can find basic YouTube videos to prove lies..Please if you really care give me a heads up and I can send countless videos or materials that prove monstrous greedy mass murdering parasites pulled off this so called terror attack called 9/11. 
inacarjam
20 Apr 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 NIST & FOIA must also be in your shot out category.. Your entire years of rants and adolescent remarks are smashed just by viewing on video NIST and FOIA released..Just One Video..This one video..{ NIST FOIA: WIlliam Cirone, Clips 01-49 ( WTC Complex & WTC7 after10:28am)  There is enough self evident facts and evidence on this one video that prove you are shot-out..Twoofer? Truther? Factoids? Break down how this one video is FAKE or STUPID..Its clear you don't give a rats ass about anything with the facts about this conspiracy..Yes that dirty word..FactChecking101? Honest..What fact checking have you done over the years about this terror attack? After you view don't go out and harm yourself..Just type sorry messages to each person you insulted..Self Evident are two words you must know as you view this one video... 
FactChecking101
20 Apr 2015
 
 
+inacarjam WTF are you ranting about?  That video shows NOTHING unexplained.

By the way, being too stupid to provide links shows us your just a copy and paste twoofer with no facts,  Time to update your lies.
Tim Veater
20 Apr 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
FactChecking10100:11 who said "You wouldn't even get a O level with that level of appreciation of basic physics."? Leaving aside the FACT that steel framed buildings do not, never have and cannot collapse from fire alone,  free fall speeds are simply IMPOSSIBLE with an undamaged steel superstructure beneath, which MUST be even more the case with a substantially UNDAMAGED building seven. Whatever the actual cause these are incontrovertible physical facts that govern the whole universe. They are immutable and unchallengeable. Anyone who does so only shows their ignorance and stupidity. Clearly that encapsulates most of the world's political elite - in public at least.
inacarjam
20 Apr 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 There are how many FBI agencies here in the lower 48 states?  I know and I also know YOU yes YOU can call anytime and ask if Mr.Laden was ever officially charged for the so called terror attacks called 9/11. Its ugly how educated people who can't understand how just photos and videos prove these office towers were not brought down by FIRE...PERIOD..For years these so called debaters who call any person who disagree's with the U.S. governments theories are truthers? Twoofers? Dip shits,Basket Weavers,Moon Bats, and any other adolescent one liners..Yet just on one video posted on YouTube SMASH everything these supposed self ordained 9/11 know it alls...ONE VIDEO POSTED ON YOUTUBE LIKE THIS ONE..{ Dustification of WTC 1 & WTC 2 Explained}  And you know the scariest video to date has been released by the U.S. government and its so self evident and failure to recognize the obvious while viewing only means that person isn't qualified..Monstrous facts are so apparent viewing vehicles incinerated blocks away from ground zero is only one fact that can't be denied..You know when someone is pissing down your back all the while its raining out..Your old enough to know fire doesn't jump from street to street..The first video is only facts hidden from the populace but this video is sinister big-time..{ NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clips 01-49 {WTC Complex & WTC 7 after 10:28..Posted by WTCFOIAVideos..Just imagine you don't need to fact check or research just view the two videos..Have A Great Day...  
FactChecking101
21 Apr 2015
 
 
+inacarjam Copy and paste rant with no evidence.  Nothing.  All lies and twoofer tales.
Tim Veater
30 Apr 2015
 
 
FactChecking101 As baby bear said to mummy bear (sitting on an iceberg): "My tail's twold."
FactChecking101
30 Apr 2015
 
 
+Bob Saturday - We come from an educated and knowledgeable perspective.  That's what keeps us from being duped by idiots into parroting their lies.  You should try it.
KbcBerlin
30 Apr 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 Well your education was poor. Because you are obviously paradigmatic.
inacarjam
1 May 2015
+
1
2
1
 
 
+FactChecking101 Still pissing up a rope...Sucks that fat one knowing just one video has smashed your countless childish unqualified analysis of just one posted video on YouTube..Fact Checking? At best you could be a great poster boy for birth control...You haven't ever viewed a demolition job in Las Vegas turn structures into dust have you..Have you asked why demo companies all over the planet why don't they use AV-JEt fuel to disintegrate office buildings. Since 9/11 I would imagine hundreds of office buildings have been imploded or demolished..The money they could save just by not using explosives would be huge.Never mind the thousands of hours of man time weakening the structures and planting explosives. After all jet fuel with some damage brought down at the time the 5th and 6th tallest offices towers on the planet in less than 2 hours on 9/11. Fossil based fuels is all that is ever needed to destroy office towers in a clearly safe and fast fashion..WOW are you shot-out..Basic math smashes all your cock and bull...Please let the adults do all the talking about this event..Go out and play...Fact find your nearest ball field...Or perhaps switch back to women..Just get some help using the words fact checking..Bet you can't spell idiot.. 
Tim Veater
1 May 2015
 
 
The current official (NIST) explanation (like the buildings) has been demonstrably demolished, yet not ONE political leader in the world (as far as I am aware) is prepared to admit it. This also demands an explanation. Could it be that to admit a lie so great, so monstrous, would also fatally undermine the very fabric of our political, financial and legal systems that have allowed it to be perpetuated, and defended the criminal states and individuals that pulled off the heist? Not to mention the whole fraudulent 'Muslim Terrorist Threat' scenario that has so dominated the international agenda since, and permitted the unholy destruction, slaughter and chaos that has ensued.
Tim Veater
1 May 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
I believe that not until this putrefying abscess on the pageant of human history has been lanced, all pretensions to democracy and justice will be fatally undermined, elections will be a pretence and the political elite despised. It is at the root of the disenchantment of the young, suspicion of international agreement and structures, and root cause of much unrest and violence.

Only if the established systems of democracy and law, prove themselves capable of challenging the lies; revealing and admitting to the truth that the most powerful nation in the world was subverted, deceived and ruined by a cohort of the malign and powerful, for perverted global and domestic (not to mention selfish) purposes and objectives, will they be able to regain public respect and confidence.

I truly believe that the present situation equates, potentially, to 'the Fall of Rome' and other cataclysmic events in human history, and the Bilderbergers realise it too. Why else do we see the unprecedented and quite blatant call to international mayhem, the militarisation of policing both sides of the Atlantic, domestic surveillance and threat of action to limit free speech and demonstration further?

Recent events in the US have demonstrated the ugly consequences of this trend. Meanwhile the President gives a satirical comedy performance equal to any by the late Robin Williams or Joan Rivers!

The 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta couldn't have come at a better time. We need another NOW!
KbcBerlin
1 May 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 You are really out of date. It has demolished itself, and contradicted itself. Get out of your Fox News hole, and find out what´s going on.

One of many examples : Quote
" It is a non controversial fact that the official version of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false "
Paul Craig Roberts . Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury under Ronald Reagan.

Insurance Underwriters Laboratories : Quote
"The temperatures were very low not hot enough to even soften steel . Floor sections did not collapse steal did not soften.."

Max Klealand who retired from The 9/11 Commission.
"This is a scandal This enquiry was set up to fail."
There are many more rebuttals of the official version from authority.
Time to wake up Facty.
The opposite of courage is not cowardice, it is conformity, even a dead fish can go with the flow.
Tim Veater
2 May 2015
+
2
3
2
 
 
KbcBerlin I like your 'dead fish' quote. I have an applicable fish aphorism too: 'The last thing a sea fish will discover is salt water'. How true that is of the present state of public awareness?
KbcBerlin
2 May 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater I see an even greater problem than lack of public awareness. The numbers and qualification of the people who question 9/11 is high now. On any non establishment challenging cause this would have by now brought reaction from above.  There is a deathly silence. No reaction . It is the last tactic of a habitual liar when has painted himself into a corner. Never ever admit the lie. No matter the evidence.  
FactChecking101
2 May 2015
 
 
+KbcBerlin - None of that in any way undermines the largest engineering investigation ever undertaken and by hundreds of top independent experts.

What about the NIST report has been proven to be inaccurate?

Please point me to the official quote: "The temperatures were very low not hot enough to even soften steel . Floor sections did not collapse steal did not soften."
KbcBerlin
2 May 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 That quote:  "The temperatures were very low not hot enough to even soften steel . Floor sections did not collapse steal did not soften." is from Insurance Underwriters Laboratory .

Further: Captain Russ Wittenburg, US air-force and Pan Am pilot for thirty years.

"The government story they handed us is total bullshit, plain and simple .
<To expect this alleged air-plane to run these manoeuvres with a total amateur at the controls is simply ridiculous " .

The people producing the version you cling to were nearly all former government employees or had careers in government contract.

I can see it is hard for average people with the proscribed view of their country as being controlled by basically decent, and honest people who may stray but such an act, as 9/11 is unbelievable.
For those who form their views from real history and not the potted patriot version handed down, the concept of evil duplicity, and betrayal in government is not such a hard concept to grasp.  It is a shock and unacceptable for many others.
I grew up with a view that however unsatisfactory democracy was, it was as it appeared to be. Through time, and education I learned different and am not happy about it. It is horrible.
My aim is to do any small thing I can to defeat those commercial dictators, arrogant, anti democratic and stuffed to the gills with hubris.  
FactChecking101
4 May 2015
 
 
+KbcBerlin - "That quote:  "The temperatures were very low not hot enough to even soften steel . Floor sections did not collapse steal did not soften." is from Insurance Underwriters Laboratory ."

False.  That quote is about a test on the floor assemblies UNDAMAGED and WITH the fire protection in place.  It behaved as they predicted it would behave in 1968 when they had to meet the 1968 building code for 2 HOURS OF SURVIVAL in a normal single point of ignition office fire.

"The people producing the version you cling to were nearly all former government employees or had careers in government contract. "

False.  They hired hundreds of the best of the best, INDEPENDENT experts.  Even if they worked for the government or depended on government contract, it's ABSURD to claim they would conspire to cover up the murder of thousands AND you have NO EVIDENCE of this.
KbcBerlin
5 May 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 " Independent ," All bought and sold . You must be one of the most disingenuous bullshitters  I have come across on the official dead fish side, and there is very stiff competition.

YOU have NO evidence.  The official case has contradicted, and "corrected" itself so many times it is a shambles. Only die hards in denial like yourself cannot see it.

Stay in your bubble the world has moved on and accepts commerce, and politics are corrupt. They have cooked their own goose. The silence of the guilty is their hope. Nobody will believe one word they, or their tame media say in the future. You can pretend it hasn´t happened ,but the price of hubris, arrogance and lies will be plain to see in the future.
Fortunately Fox etc; does not reach the wider world and you continue to look like dangerous idiots.
Tim Veater
5 May 2015
 
 
KbcBerlin09:52  Agreed. The metaphysical ramifications of this one, heinous (no other adjective is equal to it) event cannot be overstated. It is an illuminating beam into the murky depths of a grand conspiracy that has been shaping domestic and international policy before and since, of which only now, the world-wide population is becoming aware. The shift-shapers and mind manipulators have done their best (or worst) to pass off a lie and to blame the innocent, whilst exonerating the guilty. (We have recently witnessed the same in the Hampstead case proving the interconnectedness of this pernicious web of deceit) It proves in Shakespeare's words, there is 'something (deeply) rotten in the state of Denmark' - for which read the US/Israel/Acolyte nexus. There is a battle being fought for the soul and mind of humanity here. Notice how from the psychological angle, a taboo is created not merely to stifle debate but to prevent the concept even being raised. We have 'anti-Semitism'  to prevent criticism of Zionism and Israel; we have 'homo-phobia' to close down debate on sexual practice; we have 'It's all irrational conspiracy theory', to trash any proper analysis of an unsupportable official explanation. Black is indeed made white and falsehood truth. We live in a 'topsy-turvy' world, where nothing is as it seems or is portrayed. The fact that world political leaders, most recently Cameron at the UN, refuse to countenance the massive pile of evidence that 9/11 from start to finish was a 'con-job' - to provide the necessary rationale for an already agreed policy of aggression and destabilization in the Middle East, whilst providing justification for domestic repression - in fact stating in blunt terms that the intention is to regard those that pursue or disseminate the truth as akin to 'terrorists', only proves which side they are on, and the profound nature of the conflict in which the people of the world are now engaged.
FactChecking101
5 May 2015
 
 
+KbcBerlin - Of course they are bought and sold.  If they aren't, that means your an idiot, so they must be, right?  I mean, who wouldn't take a few baubles in trade for treason and conspiracy to conceal 3,000 murders?!  Makes PERFECT sense! (in twooferville)

And, by extension, all experts must know they are lying and willingly concealing their peer's treason, yes?
KbcBerlin
5 May 2015
 
 
+FactChecking101 Sweeping bullshit with intentional non differentiation, or intelligent analysis.  
You don´t want to know . That´s ok you are a moral coward there are plenty, but stop annoying people:
Hey !. Go have a beer, and have it all figured with your moron programmed buddies.
FactChecking101
6 May 2015
 
 
+KbcBerlin - Oh, I do want to know!  Please show me your evidence!  It's just amazing that you have figured it all out that hundreds of top independent experts and, by default, their peers, are all in on it for money!

Teach us master.  Show us you didn't just make it up!
Mark Cob
13 May 2015
 
 
Prime Minister Butto Look her up
just research it, connect the dots, and BAM...instant fraud...We've been had America
Tim Veater
13 May 2015
 
 
No proof. Just one sign post on a long journey to enlightenment perhaps?
FactChecking101
14 May 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater - That a prime minister of a foreign country misspoke?  That's dumb.  She later referred to OBL as being alive.

This is exactly what all twoofers do for evidence, cherry pick a factoid out of context and pretend it means something.
Tim Veater
14 May 2015
 
 
Ha Ha FactChecking10103:27 that's also what spoofies do. Intentionally miss the point.
KbcBerlin
14 May 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater "Intentionally miss the point " Good.
 I have been using disingenuous, but your term is probably better for these no education duds.
FactChecking101
15 May 2015
 
 
+Tim Veater How's factoid picking going today?  Do you have a realistic alternative explanation yet or are you still winging it over a decade later?
inacarjam
13:31
 
Reply
 
+FactChecking101 Usama Bin Laden was never indicted for 9/11. Its crazy how a young man who has a YouTube channel called 911EmpiricalEvidence has visual facts and undisputed evidence any person with a IQ over 90 can extrapolate..( 9/11 World Trade Center Steel Column Turns To Dust ) Just one video he has posted that cannot be rejected as being nonsense..Self-Evident monstrous facts are caught on this one video..He by the way has a large number of videos that prove 9/11 wasn't pulled off by 19 men with box cutters who supposedly were trained on puddle jumpers..