Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What exactly happened on 911?

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes. Obviously. If they lied under oath they would perjure themselves - a felony. Clearly their "special arrangement" where they didn't have to be sworn in suggests that they intended to lie.

    If they're involved with organising a conspiracy leading to mass murder on this scale, do you not think that their consciences might stretch to lying under oath?

    Honestly, do you think, having actively organised the murder of so many people, that their conspiracy would fail because they were asked to give testimony "under oath"?

    It really does not make any sense.


  • #63
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes. Obviously. If they lied under oath they would perjure themselves - a felony. Clearly their "special arrangement" where they didn't have to be sworn in suggests that they intended to lie.

    Mass murder of thousands of US citizens is slightly more serious than perjury. If we accept the premise that Bush n Cheney could have been guilty of mass murder why would they care about perjury charges?


  • #64
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    north_star_33 wrote: »
    i have looked at both sides

    ive been looking at it for years.....

    and again i say..show me the video evidence of hani hanjour executing that turn to hit the pentagon ..show me mobile phone footage ...show me cctv from the pentagon ......show me cctv from the surrounding buildings...........

    Well it was 2001 camera phones were not widespread.

    Similarly why would people film the execution of the turn.

    As to CCTV footage why would surrounding buildings have CCTV of the pentagon.
    show me anything that shows hani hanjour hitting the pentagon (im not denying the fact totally , i just like to see evidence of it)

    Flight 77 flew so low it clipped street light. It flew across a busy 8 lane highway during the morning rush hour. Thats right the plane flew around 30-45ft level, and hundreds of people witnessed it.
    and as for bush and cheney....i think that thats a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 .....i said above that bush was probably not behind ..but they know something and they got away with it ....

    some truthers may be wack jobs......but i still think they have it right with the claim that people had inside knowledge of this event....

    Avoiding my question you claim that there is something to bush and cheney not testifying under oath. If Bush and Cheney could be indited by the 911 comission do you think that they would have any trouble lying under oath?


  • #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they just commit perjury if it would make the hoax more convincing?

    ... because they didn't have to. They were free to spin any yarns they desired risk free.

    You and the rest aren't thinking this through. Let's say I murder my next door neighbour. I get interviewed by the police and tell them about an Asian man fleeing the scene that I pretend I saw. I tell them I spent the night at home with my girlfriend. The police round up some innocent Chinaman and he is put before a judge a jury. I am called as a witness by the prosecution and am sworn in and repeat my lies.

    It later transpires that I have a falling out with my girlfriend and she informs the police that we weren't in fact together on the night of the murder. Under interrogation I admit this to the police.

    I am charged with perjury, convicted and am sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

    Just because I have been convicted of perjury doesn't mean I am guilty of the murder (though I am) in the eyes of the law. I am still innocent of the murder until proven guilty.

    Bush and Cheney didn't have this problem. They could say whatever they wanted and it wouldn't come back on them.

    If we assume that Bush/Cheney only concern was truth and justice then being sworn in isn't an issue.

    If we assume that Bush/Cheney intend to tell lies being sworn in is an issue and it could land them in separate cells.

    Being sworn in was a major issue for both Bush and Cheney.


  • #66
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    .....

    It later transpires that I have a falling out with my girlfriend and she informs the police that we weren't in fact together on the night of the murder. Under interrogation I admit this to the police.

    I am charged with perjury, convicted and am sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

    Just because I have been convicted of perjury doesn't mean I am guilty of the murder (though I am) in the eyes of the law. I am still innocent of the murder until proven guilty.
    .

    I don't think you thought this through.

    Someone gets disgruntled and undermines the lie because you can't keep everyone's mouth shut. Can you not see the relevance of this to the massive 9/11 conspiracy theory web???

    Secondly, if it turned out that your evidence in the murder of your next door neighbour was deliberately false - you would be investigated for the murder long before a perjury trial was on the cards.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    [QUOTE=Brown Bomber;84516905
    If we assume that Bush/Cheney intend to tell lies being sworn in is an issue and it could land them in separate cells.

    Being sworn in was a major issue for both Bush and Cheney.[/QUOTE]

    Why?

    Seriously if Bush and Cheney had evidence of 9/11 being a inside job, or indeed that the federal government could have prevented 9/11 they would be charged with much more serious crimes so why would perjury be the breaking point for either man?

    Please explain?


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... because they didn't have to. They were free to spin any yarns they desired risk free.
    ....
    If we assume that Bush/Cheney only concern was truth and justice then being sworn in isn't an issue.

    If we assume that Bush/Cheney intend to tell lies being sworn in is an issue and it could land them in separate cells.

    Being sworn in was a major issue for both Bush and Cheney.
    But they apparently did have to do it as not doing it is giving the game away.

    Surely any court they would appear in would be controlled so they would never be called up on any lies they told, so would not have to worry about being charged with perjury.
    And with no additional consequences, there's no reason why they would care about committing an additional extra minor crime when it is to their benefit.


  • #69
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    King Mob wrote: »
    But they apparently did have to do it as not doing it is giving the game away.

    Surely any court they would appear in would be controlled so they would never be called up on any lies they told, so would not have to worry about being charged with perjury.
    And with no additional consequences, there's no reason why they would care about committing an additional extra minor crime when it is to their benefit.

    Said better and more concisely than myself.

    The problem with most 9/11 conspiracy theories is they bring up more problems than they solve.


  • #70
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Sixtus wrote: »
    Why?

    Seriously if Bush and Cheney had evidence of 9/11 being a inside job, or indeed that the federal government could have prevented 9/11 they would be charged with much more serious crimes so why would perjury be the breaking point for either man?

    Please explain?

    Because under many questions, one little lie that is somehow at a later date exposed as provable lies was to somehow leak out, and lead to a perjury charge, and might bring a whole bunch of new questions.

    And with george bush's record of bullshit and lies and contradicting himself, I think it was a liabilty to allow him give evidence under oath.

    Erm mr president "how did you see the first plane hit the towers?"

    GWB: "blah blah blah" BS that if came back and proved to be lies sometime in the future....Perjury

    A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury

    That and any other question they were asked and later found to lies...

    Bush to Limit Testimony Before 9/11 Panel
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/us/bush-to-limit-testimony-before-9-11-panel.html

    Criticism of the 9/11 Commission
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

    What the 9/11 commission report ignores: the CIA-Al Qaeda connection
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/07/comm-j24.html


  • #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    stuar wrote: »
    Because under many questions, one little lie that is somehow at a later date exposed as provable lies was to somehow leak out, and lead to a perjury charge, and might bring a whole bunch of new questions.

    And with george bush's record of bullshit and lies and contradicting himself, I think it was a liabilty to allow him give evidence under oath.
    But this still runs into the same problems.
    The court could easily be controlled and scripted meaning that 1) he'd never be put into the position of saying something that is proveably wrong and 2) never be called out on it if he did.

    You are also arguing that he didn't want to go in under oath because he might say something that would draw suspicion.
    But you are also saying that him not going under oath is in itself suspicious.

    The conspiracy theory in this case has a gigantic hole and contradiction in the middle of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    But this still runs into the same problems.
    The court could easily be controlled and scripted meaning that 1) he'd never be put into the position of saying something that is proveably wrong and 2) never be called out on it if he did.

    You are also arguing that he didn't want to go in under oath betcause he might say something that would draw suspicion.
    But you are also saying that him not going under oath is in itself suspicious.

    The conspiracy theory in this case has a gigantic hole and contradiction in the middle of it.

    This is getting very frustrating.

    If you are a President and intend to lie on record and wish to avoid felony charges, disgrace and possible impeachment then you insist on refusing to be sworn in which lets you avoid all of these penalties for your lying.

    If you are a President who intends to tell the truth then being sworn in isn't an issue as you won't face any of the penalties above.

    Considering President Bush refused to talk to the Commission under Oath it is very suggestive that he fully intended to lie and was fearful of the consequences of lying under oath.


  • #73
    Hoop66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,829 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is getting very frustrating.

    If you are a President and intend to lie on record and wish to avoid felony charges, disgrace and possible impeachment then you insist on refusing to be sworn in which lets you avoid all of these penalties for your lying.

    If you are a President who intends to tell the truth then being sworn in isn't an issue as you won't face any of the penalties above.

    Considering President Bush refused to talk to the Commission under Oath it is very suggestive that he fully intended to lie and was fearful of the consequences of lying under oath.
    But surely, if you (the president) are found to have lied about your role in 9/11, the penaly for lying under oath will be the least of your worries when it is discovered that you had a hand in 9/11?


  • #74
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    But surely, if you (the president) are found to have lied about your role in 9/11, the penaly for lying under oath will be the least of your worries when it is discovered that you had a hand in 9/11?

    Granted. But
    found to have lied about your role in 9/11

    and
    you had a hand in 9/11

    Aren't necessarily the same thing. He wasn't being interviewed a suspect for the 911 attacks - though bizarrely there is direct relationships between his family as the commander-in-chief of the attacked and the family of the "mastermind" of the attacks.

    Point being a real Congressional investigation into 911 at a later date is and then was a genuine possibility. Bush/Cheney have no problems lying as yellowcake and mobile WMD labs has proven. If they had made these statements under oath they would have perjured themselves. If a subsequent 911 investigation could show that Bush and Cheney willfully lied under oath then could both end up in prison. If a subsequent 911 investigation could show that they lied but weren't sworn in then ... nothing...

    Proving they lied doesn't prove their involvement beyond that, though it suggests it.


  • #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is getting very frustrating.

    If you are a President and intend to lie on record and wish to avoid felony charges, disgrace and possible impeachment then you insist on refusing to be sworn in which lets you avoid all of these penalties for your lying.

    If you are a President who intends to tell the truth then being sworn in isn't an issue as you won't face any of the penalties above.

    Considering President Bush refused to talk to the Commission under Oath it is very suggestive that he fully intended to lie and was fearful of the consequences of lying under oath.
    So again you're running into the same loop.

    You are saying that he wants to avoid being suspicious by lying under oath, but is acting suspicious by not being under oath.

    Surely if he just lied under oath it would be less suspicious and would make it seem that he that he does not intend to lie which was supposedly the entire point of these controlled inquiries and commissions

    He clearly would not be fearful of the consequences as he would never face them in a controlled court and would be incredibly minor compared to the consequences of his involvement of the plot.

    Even in your murder analogy you can see how lying under oath (even when there is consquences) is to the benefit of the person trying not to be convicted.


  • #76
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Which is preferable to you ?

    1. Teling lies and people being "suspicious" of you
    2. Telling lies which lead you to becoming a convicted felon and sharing a prison cell with Dick Cheney


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Which is preferable to you ?

    1. Teling lies and people being "suspicious" of you
    2. Telling lies which lead you to becoming a convicted felon and sharing a prison cell with Dick Cheney
    Since the second one would not happen regardless of what I said, and that I was in some way complicit in a massive conspiracy that would be far far worse than perjury and that I had specifically set up sham investigations and such to avoid and deflect suspicion...
    The first option.

    Why would they care about the 2-3 years they might get for perjury, but not the life sentences they would get for being involved in 9/11?

    Are you suggesting somehow they were unable to control the courts and law enforcement to avoid something as minor as perjury charges?


  • #78
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Okay. So you have finally accepted the obvious. That if you are going to lie it is better to not get a prison sentence for it.

    Bush's dilemma: If I lie under oath I can get jail time.

    Bush's solution: Lie but not under oath.

    Simple.


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Okay. So you have finally accepted the obvious. That if you are going to lie it is better to not get a prison sentence for it.

    Bush's dilemma: If I lie under oath I can get jail time.

    Bush's solution: Lie but not under oath.

    Simple.
    But if he lied under oath he still would not be in any risk of any jail time.
    And being under oath has the added benefit of being less suspicious, which is the entire point of the investigation.


  • #80
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    But if he lied under oath he still would not be in any risk of any jail time.
    And being under oath has the added benefit of being less suspicious, which is the entire point of the investigation.

    If he lied under oath he has committed a felony which carries a maximum 5 year prison sentence.

    It is a deterrent to dissuade people from lying to investigators/juries seeking to establish the truth.

    It is not a guarantee that people can't lie under oath. In this case the removal of being sworn-in as a pre-condition of giving of information.

    People still do lie under oath to protect themselves, associates, ideologies etc. A good example is ever-honest Lance Armstrong.

    Who now refuses to give testimony under oath.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21523597

    It's not hard to figure out why. Just like Bush & Cheney. Dogmatic denials will get us nowhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter.


  • #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If he lied under oath he has committed a felony which carries a maximum 5 year prison sentence.
    Yes, which would be the case if it was a true court and investigation.

    However if the investigation was under the control of the conspirators, then why would they fear committing perjury?

    Are you suggesting that they could not actually control the court? If so, that raises even more problems with the conspiracy theory.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's not hard to figure out why. Just like Bush & Cheney.
    So by not being under oath, they are making it obvious that they were involved in the conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, which would be the case if it was a true court and investigation.

    However if the investigation was under the control of the conspirators, then why would they fear committing perjury?

    Are you suggesting that they could not actually control the court? If so, that raises even more problems with the conspiracy theory.


    So by not being under oath, they are making it obvious that they were involved in the conspiracy?

    I'm done. This is pointless.


  • #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm done. This is pointless.
    No, it's a very simple, important point.

    Lying under oath is more beneficial for Bush than not being under oath.
    There is no additional risk for doing this.

    They only way your argument works is under the assumption that Bush and other conspirators lacked the power to avoid something as simple as perjury charges.

    This is a problem for the conspiracy theory (specifically the one being suggested by North Star 33) as it begs the question of how they then had to power to do all of that other stuff.

    What do you disagree with?


  • #84
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,727 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Move the discussion along. This argument is going around in circles and will likely continue doing so. Brown Bomber has said he doesn't want to continue with this line of discussion, so agree to disagree and move on.


Advertisement