9/11, the ripple effect

sbkenn

Has anyone seen the conspiracy theories on 9/11 and 7/7 ?
Did you know that Ireland recently extradited a proponent to the UK for, what at worst, is a political offence(where extradition is prohibited), and at best, simply not an offense under the law of either country ?
This person simply distributed DVD's of eveidence that the 9/11 attacks were done with military aircraft.

Monty Burnz

sbkenn wrote: »

Has anyone seen the conspiracy theories on 9/11 and 7/7 ?
Did you know that Ireland recently extradited a proponent to the UK for, what at worst, is a political offence(where extradition is prohibited), and at best, simply not an offense under the law of either country ?
This person simply distributed DVD's of eveidence that the 9/11 attacks were done with military aircraft.

Link? I'd love to see the evidence...

sbkenn

Google it !.
I don't actually believe it WAS staged, but
1) There is evidence that much was not as reported.
2) I believe G.W.Bush and his administration are capable of such an act.
3) I do believe that Ireland was wrong to extradite the guy.
4) I believe that the US & the UK are hiding something. Why go to so much trouble if he is simply a crackpot ?.

S.

King Mob

sbkenn wrote: »

Google it !.
I don't actually believe it WAS staged, but
1) There is evidence that much was not as reported.
2) I believe G.W.Bush and his administration are capable of such an act.
3) I do believe that Ireland was wrong to extradite the guy.
4) I believe that the US & the UK are hiding something. Why go to so much trouble if he is simply a crackpot ?.

S.

So if they were willing to extradite this one guy for what you claim, how come there are so many other people allowed to produce the videos in the first place?
Like Alex Jones or the Loose Change guys or the dude who wrote Zeitgeist?
Surely if they wanted to stop these videos from spreading they would just target the people who produce them.

But this is assuming the guy you're talking about was extradited for just spreading videos. I get the feeling you yourself aren't giving us the full story.

sbkenn

There is a guy on a boat in Grand Canal Dock who knows a lot more than I do ... if anyone feels like talking to him.

King Mob

sbkenn wrote: »

There is a guy on a boat in Grand Canal Dock who knows a lot more than I do ... if anyone feels like talking to him.

So then why are you so sure that this guy was arrested for just spreading DVDs?
Do you just believe everything you are told by men on boats?

Monty Burnz

Aside from the whole 9/11 conspiracy, do we have any reason to believe that someone was extradited to the UK for distributing these DVDs?

Any reason at all??

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Aside from the whole 9/11 conspiracy, do we have any reason to believe that someone was extradited to the UK for distributing these DVDs?

Any reason at all??

Yes. The news.

The guy sent (his?) 7/7 film to a 7/7 trial jury in the UK.

uprising2

sbkenn wrote: »

There is a guy on a boat in Grand Canal Dock who knows a lot more than I do ... if anyone feels like talking to him.

I know a bit about it, his name is Anthony John Hill or John Anthony Hill or JAH or Maud Dib, he made/produced 7/7 ripple effect, during the trial of alleged co conspiritors (LINK) to the 7/7 bombings he sent a copy of 7/7 ripple effect to the Judge and court clerk of the trial, which they never recieved.

He was arrested at his home in Kells, Co Meath on an extradition warrant for trying to pervert the course of justice, I was at his extaradition appeal on 11/11 at 11am last year, that he lost, I spoke with him briefly afterwards and expressed my disappointment at the outcome.


Offering evidence has never been considered trying to pervert the course of justice.

I've been following this case for a while, its a stitch up. The man

He is a peaceful man with strong beliefs, he will be slated here as a nut for some of his other work/beliefs, thats why I never brought it up here.

He is over 60 years old and maybe facing up to life in prison for posting DVD's. He's a man of peace, now rotting in a uk prison on bogus trumped up charges.

He was in court again yesterday, although they didnt actually bring him to court.

Sorry..UPDATE...He Got bail today, thank God for that!
http://mtrial.org/

Muad'Dib FINALLY granted bail

created 08.03.2011 - 12:00, updated 08.03.2011 - 12:48
March 8th, 2011 -- London, England
Today, after a great deal of behind the scenes “mistakes” (read: manipulation) by the State’s various organs, Muad’Dib was finally brought to His own bail hearing, and bail was granted by the judge.

Here's some links about the case:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931721.html

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/53806-message-john-anthony-hill-arrested-posting-dvd.html

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/db899f639cfa6580

Anthony John Hill: Life in Prison for Posting DVD?
http://thetruthnews.info/Anthony_John_Hill.html

Here's his 7/7 video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776#

EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvFz16HOHjo

humanji

His beliefs have feck all to do with it. He was attempting to pervert the course of justice. The authorities are going overboard and a slap on the wrist is all that's warranted, but it's not a case of him being oppressed for his beliefs.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

He's a man of peace, now rotting in a uk prison on bogus trumped up charges.

Thanks, some solid info at last.

Regarding the charges - I don't see how they are trumped up? Either he sent the DVDs or he didn't. If he did, and he admits it, then it's up to a jury to determine whether he was trying to pervert the course of justice. I guess he would say that he was, as he was presumably trying to influence/interfere with a decision made by a jury, but to be honest I think it would be a bit harsh to bang the guy up for this.

Edit: Just watched the first 6 minutes of the video and it's full of holes that a child could see. I don't think this guy represents any threat to anyone, and it's a bit ridiculous that they had him in a prison cell that could have been used to house a violent criminal or some genuine threat to society.

Edit 2: I just watched that 2 minute video in your post, Uprising2, and it was exactly the type of thing that gives CTs a bad name - full of language errors (indiscrepancies??) and factual mistakes. It begs the question, do the people who make these videos know that they are full of inaccuracies but don't care as they are twisting things to fit their narrative, or do they not even realise that they are errors, which raises questions about their abilities to distinguish between fact and fiction.

King Mob

Wait, Maud-Dib? Like from Dune?

Also it's pretty clear that saying "he was arrested for handing out DVD" isn't a totally truthful statement.
It's a bit like saying a bank robber was "just arrested for going into a bank".

Di0genes

King Mob wrote: »

Wait, Maud-Dib? Like from Dune?

Also it's pretty clear that saying "he was arrested for handing out DVD" isn't a totally truthful statement.
It's a bit like saying a bank robber was "just arrested for going into a bank".

He attempted to pervert the course of justice, and considers himself the true high king of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and Jerusalem.

Anyone pitching a campaign around this guy needs to find a new hero pronto.

And the ripple effect and 9/11 have been done to death on this forum.

King Mob

Di0genes wrote: »

He attempted to pervert the course of justice, and considers himself the true high king of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and Jerusalem.

well if he's here to wrest control of Ireland's spice from the filthy Harkonnen, I'm right behind him.

Monty Burnz

Di0genes wrote: »

He attempted to pervert the course of justice, and considers himself the true high king of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and Jerusalem.

Anyone pitching a campaign around this guy needs to find a new hero pronto.

Had a quick look at his web stuff and he's a total fruit-loop. :eek:

Guilty but insane at worst, surely?

Edit: just realised that should probably be not guilty by reason of insanity.

uprising2

humanji wrote: »

His beliefs have feck all to do with it. He was attempting to pervert the course of justice. The authorities are going overboard and a slap on the wrist is all that's warranted, but it's not a case of him being oppressed for his beliefs.

He did NOTHING wrong, google "Amicus curiae", he's been made a scapegoat, he's a threat to nobody, he has his beliefs, but posting a DVD to a court as evidence does not equal perverting the course of justice.

Here I'll quote:

"An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman lawI]citation needed[/I. Starting in the 9th centuryI]citation needed[/I, it was incorporated to English law, and was later extended to most of common law systems. Later, it was also introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights. From there, it was integrated in some civil law systems (it has recently been integrated in Argentina). Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of European Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae


So he has done nothing wrong!

humanji

That doesn't count as amicus curiae. It would if he it had been any of the things mentioned in your definition and was not sent to the jury. Sending it to the jury is an act of tampering with the jury. That is the crime he's accused of and which he wholeheartedly admits to.

uprising2

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Had a quick look at his web stuff and he's a total fruit-loop. :eek:

Guilty but insane at worst, surely?

Exactly the kind of reply I was talking about, he has his beliefs, but they have nothing to do with this, were talking about an ageing, VERY peaceful man, with alternative thinking to whats considered "normal", but as my previous post shows he's done absolutely NOTHING wrong or against any law.

He's guilty of nothing!

humanji

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Had a quick look at his web stuff and he's a total fruit-loop. :eek:

Guilty but insane at worst, surely?

As Uprising2 says, the man has his beliefs. And he's entitled to them. And you're entitled to attack them. But there's no need to needlessly be having a go and the man himself.

uprising2

humanji wrote: »

That doesn't count as amicus curiae. It would if he it had been any of the things mentioned in your definition and was not sent to the jury. Sending it to the jury is an act of tampering with the jury. That is the crime he's accused of and which he wholeheartedly admits to.

He sent it to the court house not the home of any member of the jury.

"The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. "

So it was up to the court to decide, they chose not to present the dvd to the jury.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Exactly the kind of reply I was talking about, he has his beliefs, but they have nothing to do with this, were talking about an ageing, VERY peaceful man, with alternative thinking to whats considered "normal", but as my previous post shows he's done absolutely NOTHING wrong or against any law.

He's guilty of nothing!

But your post doesn't show that Uprising.
Trying to influence a jury is against the law, that's what he's accused of.

Him being a "peaceful man" has no baring on whether or not he tried to do so.
He can have all the alternative views he likes but jury tampering is still illegal.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Exactly the kind of reply I was talking about, he has his beliefs, but they have nothing to do with this, were talking about an ageing, VERY peaceful man, with alternative thinking to whats considered "normal", but as my previous post shows he's done absolutely NOTHING wrong or against any law.

He's guilty of nothing!

Whether he is guilty or not will be decided by a jury that have access to all the facts. The guy is clearly insane - he has tracked down the Ark of the Covenant, did you know? Yeah, it's in Tara. And you know who is behind the 'New World Order'? Satan. In person, I think.

I agree with you to the extent that it seems unnecessary to try a harmless crazy old codger, but he clearly was trying to influence the jury by sending them his silly film. Hopefully he'll get a slap on the wrist at worst and be allowed on his way.

Monty Burnz

humanji wrote: »

As Uprising2 says, the man has his beliefs. And he's entitled to them. And you're entitled to attack them. But there's no need to needlessly be having a go and the man himself.

It's not 'needlessly' having a go at the man - I'm looking at what he purports to believe in the context of his being tried for a criminal offence. My belief is that he is not sane, and should not be found guilty of any crime for that reason.

Edit: perhaps I should have sent that as a PM? I can delete and do so if needed.

humanji

uprising2 wrote: »

He sent it to the court house not the home of any member of the jury.

"The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. "

So it was up to the court to decide, they chose not to present the dvd to the jury.

The evidence is given to the prosecution or the defence, who in turn give it to the judge. He decided to try and get it to the jury. This is jury tampering and is illegal.

It's not 'needlessly' having a go at the man - I'm looking at what he purports to believe in the context of his being tried for a criminal offence. My belief is that he is not sane, and should not be found guilty of any crime for that reason.

Edit: perhaps I should have sent that as a PM? I can delete and do so if needed.

Don't worry about the PM. But your posts are a little on the abusive side, rather than questioning his sanity. Just tone it down.

Monty Burnz

humanji wrote: »

Don't worry about the PM. But your posts are a little on the abusive side, rather than questioning his sanity. Just tone it down.

Duly noted - I'll try to stick to more formal terms.

uprising2

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Whether he is guilty or not will be decided by a jury that have access to all the facts. The guy is clearly insane - he has tracked down the Ark of the Covenant, did you know? Yeah, it's in Tara. And you know who is behind the 'New World Order'? Satan. In person, I think.

I agree with you to the extent that it seems unnecessary to try a harmless crazy old codger, but he clearly was trying to influence the jury by sending them his silly film. Hopefully he'll get a slap on the wrist at worst and be allowed on his way.

Yeah I know quite a lot about the man, much more than you ever will.

Do you know the history of the coronation stone that queen lizzy was coronated on and how THEY (the royal establishment) say it is the stone of destiny.

Some Scottish legends surrounding the Stone of Scone, traditionally used for coronations of Scottish kings in the High Middle Ages, have identified this stone with the Stone of Jacob. Supposedly the Stone of Jacob was brought to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah and from thence to Scotland.[2][3]
These legends also feature prominently in British Israelism, a set of beliefs that consider the British monarchy as the legitimate heir to the ancient Israelites. Frome 1308 to 1996, the Stone of Scone - identified with the Stone of Jacob - rested in the Royal throne of England at Westminster.
also known as the stone of destiny

The high Kings of Ireland were also coronated on the "same?" stone, it was taken from Tara, Ireland to Scotland and England and a "replacement" sent back to Scotland.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=QnDtohOe8-QC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=british+monarchy+from+jerusalem&source=bl&ots=NSIrXyAeFA&sig=Boh4IIR79hdssUDhFAb9yWiCg1M&hl=en&ei=YGN2TeayN8GahQe_t8X4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=british%20monarchy%20from%20jerusalem&f=false


Geological Evidence for the British Throne of David?
Could the tradition that the British monarchy is the kingly line of David, crowned on the Stone of Jacob, be subjected to scientific scrutiny?

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/throne.html




Legend has it that the stone is Jacobs pillow/pillar stone, taken from Jerusalem before the capture by the babylonians to Ireland.

So the royals are just as insane as John Hill.

uprising2

Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8124687.stm

Please read the following taken from Muad'Dib's Written Submission to the Irish Supreme Court:-

43. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to submit the statement that, from the learned judge’s legal-experience, he must have known was a lie; for which the Minister should be charged with committing perjury; and the learned judge also erred by then accepting that lie into the hearing. That false statement/lie being that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice, as the Minister MUST know, is clearly defined in the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/...l#partvi-sec41

Section 41. – (1) Without prejudice to any provision made by any other enactment or rule of law, a person – who harms or threatens, menaces or in any other way intimidates or puts in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation by the Garda Siochána of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, or a member of his or her family, with the intention thereby of causing the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, shall be guilty of an offence.

44. Peart J. erred in law by then allowing the Minister to build on that lie; that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice; to introduce into the hearing, a different offence in English law, not Irish law: stating that we have to accept the English law, in an Irish court: that of attempting to influence a judge or jury. If it is a crime to attempt to influence a judge or jury, then every barrister and solicitor is guilty of that crime, in every case.

45. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to advance this argument when it is based on a lie and it is a different offence from that with which the Appellant is charged, and now the Minister is at it again having subsequently introduced embracery (from 1360AD) and contempt of court, that appear nowhere in the EAW that is the subject of this case, as is required by law. Who is he serving?

http://mtrial.org/node/38

Muad'Dib even quotes the section from the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999, for their benefit. The Supreme Court judge went on to state that the law goes back 100 years (so why not try Muad'Dib in an Irish court for it?) and also stated that "it is a common law". The presiding judge delivered this ruling against Muad'Dib never realizing that he had actually misunderstood the point(?) and was ruling in favour of what Muad'Dib had actually presented in His Written Submission. And these were allegedly "learned" and "impartial" Supreme Court judges?

The presiding judge also made a slip of the tongue when discussing the DVD by stating that it was "anticipated", which later he corrected to "intercepted". He went on to say that "any approach to a jury may amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice". The court therefore stated their rejection of the second of their three cherry-picked arguments, never realizing (or did they?) that they AGAIN misunderstood the point and had actually agreed with Muad'Dib's argument here whilst ruling against Him.

The third argument considered was that the crime was not committed in England. This was rejected on the grounds that the act of communication with the Jury took place in England, despite the fact that the DVDs were mailed from Ireland, AND despite the fact the alleged act of communication with the Jury never took place. They again used a far-fetched analogy, that it would be the same as if Muad'Dib had telephoned someone in England and asked them to do it, never taking into consideration that the DVDs were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, for the court to forward as they saw fit, and that THE DVDs NEVER REACHED THE JURY. The court therefore rejected the third of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Submission, again under false pretenses.

And that is how the "learned" Irish Supreme Court judges orchestrated upholding the extradition request.

Several chants from the supporters then began, "Traitors", "Injustice", "Cowards", "This is an outrage", "Shame", and "Look at the evidence, Servers of Satan”. Muad'Dib sat quietly on the bench for 3 or 4 minutes with a Garda policy enforcer standing over Him. He was not forced to his feet, the Garda policy enforcer could clearly see he was a very peaceful and elderly man. Muad'Dib's Followers tried to appeal to the Garda policy enforcer's common sense to reconsider what he was doing to no avail.

Muad'Dib was taken to the local Garda station first and then transferred to Cloverhill, where He had previously spent 33 days incarcerated for this matter. There is presently no update on when He will be moved from Cloverhill to the U.K. and no court date there has been set.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Yeah I know quite a lot about the man, much more than you ever will.

There's no need for that sort of bull. If I was sufficiently interested, I'm sure I could become quite the expert on this guy. Do you want to compare academic qualifications, which might give an indication of our respective abilities to research and learn about things? Why do you feel the need to personalise the discussion when the evidence goes against you?

uprising2 wrote: »

Legend has it that the stone is Jacobs pillow/pillar stone, taken from Jerusalem before the capture by the babylonians to Ireland.

Legend has it that the Giant's Causeway was built by a giant.

uprising2 wrote: »

So the royals are just as insane as John Hill.

If they actually believe that stuff, you are undoubtedly correct. And if you believe it, surely you should be calling him His Royal Highness John Hill, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, and Israel?

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

never taking into consideration that the DVDs were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, for the court to forward as they saw fit, and that THE DVDs NEVER REACHED THE JURY.

"How can you try me for attempted bank robbery, your Honour? I was stopped before I could get into the vault!"

So how come the God-Emperor of Dune here isn't using the never-fail feeman defence?

Di0genes

uprising2 wrote: »

Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8124687.stm

Please read the following taken from Muad'Dib's Written Submission to the Irish Supreme Court:-

43. Peart J. erred in law by allowing the Minister to submit the statement that, from the learned judge’s legal-experience, he must have known was a lie; for which the Minister should be charged with committing perjury; and the learned judge also erred by then accepting that lie into the hearing. That false statement/lie being that there is no definition in Irish law of perverting the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice, as the Minister MUST know, is clearly defined in the Irish Criminal Justice Act, 1999,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/...l#partvi-sec41

Muad'dib/John Hill didn't break any Irish laws.

If the 7/7 accused trial was in Ireland in Irish jurisdiction, then this would be a matter for Irish courts.

Section 41
Muad'Dib was taken to the local Garda station first and then transferred to Cloverhill, where He had previously spent 33 days incarcerated for this matter. There is presently no update on when He will be moved from Cloverhill to the U.K. and no court date there has been set.

He'll be tried for a very serious criminal act. No Freeman nonsense will get him out of this, and he'll be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence.

He seems to be a decent soul. Principled and forthright and determined.

But sending evidence to a jury during a criminal trial is not the way to do this.

that the DVDs were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, for the court to forward as they saw fit, and that THE DVDs NEVER REACHED THE JURY. The court therefore rejected the third of their three cherry-picked arguments from Muad'Dib's Submission, again under false pretenses.

Thats a absurd piece of logic his intention was to pervert the course of justice. Much in the same way that there are charges for attempted murder and attempted drug smuggling. The very act is itself a criminal act and therefore needs to be punished.

I also find it hilarious that this is his defence to avoid extradition to face trial. Not only is he not guilty of the crime. The country that accuses him of it, shouldn't be allowed to prosecution him. And in any case because he was unsuccessful any way he hasn't done anything wrong, so should be released.

I can only hope the judge brought some extra strong paracetamol into chambers that morning. Because they'd need it for the headache this case would bring about

uprising2

7/7 trial: how acquitted trio came to embrace radical cause
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6188667.ece

Trio cleared over 7/7 attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7514542.stm