XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order   
      
   On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:06:16 -0400, "Dogchain"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message   
   >news:k31b1359245kkdfm30o8krkhk6iv727kct@4ax.com...   
   >> On 5 Apr 2007 02:23:13 -0700, "Day Brown"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>More to the point is that the group think about 911 is breaking down.   
   >>>I really would like to see the evidence, but the only place to present   
   >>>*evidence* is in a legal proceeding where the witnesses have to   
   >>>present their credentials to prove they are who they say, and swear   
   >>>under oath and penalty of perjury.   
   >>>   
   >>>Anyone can post anything on the net and claim to be whatever they   
   >>>think will improve their credibility. The problem with not having a   
   >>>court or congressional hearing is that these posted reports are   
   >>>gradually increasing and damaging the credibility of those in   
   >>>government, both Republicans and Democrats.   
   >>>   
   >>>I dont claim to know what happened on 911. In fact, I claim *NOT* to   
   >>>know, and I'd like to get this issue settled so we can quit wasting   
   >>>space on ad hominum and move on to some of the other issues that need   
   >>>to be dealt with.   
   >>>   
   >>>If Col Razer has a case, then surely he can find some citizen of New   
   >>>York city who suffered damages on 911 to bring a civil case against   
   >>>Silverstein. With all the 911 websites, why havnt any of them already   
   >>>done this to prove they are right? Didnt Silverstein receive billions?   
   >>>Isnt there *money* to be made by smart lawyers? Arent there any smart   
   >>>lawyers in New York city? If the 911 websites are correct, then isnt   
   >>>there the *EVIDENCE* to present in a class action civil suit?   
   >>>   
   >>>Hello? Why are we talking about this here, when there are millions to   
   >>>be made by smart lawyers in New York? WTF?   
   >>   
   >> Because the "smart lawyers" know that there isn't a case.   
   >   
   >Or perhaps looking at the law...getting the ducks in a row.   
      
   Or not.   
      
   >I've already said anytime (@ your convenience) ...just let me know.   
   >   
   >Isn't that right, wussyboi?   
      
   Name a date and time, coward.   
      
   >Perhaps you'd like to contact a "smart lawyer", wussyboi?   
      
   You're the one who probably needs a lawyer, coward.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)