9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since Mr. Rodriguez did provide testimony for a RICO case, exactly what he said and meant will be detailed in the plea brief filed with the court. Then speculation does not have to be done. It will be quite clear when presented to a court - deposition or otherwise.

I'm not sure what a "plea brief" is but the actual RICO case has been filed and can be found here.

Just to educate you Orion, the pleading has already been filed and the sum of the allegations are in the pleading. If he had something to say about bombs, he would have alleged that eye witness testimony in the actual filing.

All the allegations have been made, now it's up to those who filed the RICO case to prove their allegations.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I will explain how it is supposed to work.

Is there an attached deposition from Mr. Rodriguez? I did not check to see if the plea brief had any attachments. It will say on the brief if there is or not.

Plea briefs detail the laws on which Mr. Rodriquez is basing his case. His case is briefly stated based on legal precedents filed in the plea brief.

It is up to the attorneys to find the correct legal precedents to file with the court. In those precedents, will be blatant clues or clear words as to on exactly what Mr. Rodriquez and plaintiff attorney(s) have based his complaint.

A brief is what is filed with a court judge to begin a case, and includes legal precedents for the case plea to go forward in court. Depositions may come later. Without legal precedents, it can be most difficult to plead to any judge to hear a case, including criminal actions.

The attorneys must argue legal substance, of the case before a judge in chambers, which will involve arguments from both plantiff and defendent attorneys, before a judge has to make a decision to accept or dismiss plea of the plantiff. During arguments, the attorney(s), representing Mr. Rodriguez, must include enough of Mr. Rodriguez's testimoney to substantiate Mr. Rodriguez has a solid case of complaint plea.

In the case of criminal action, the plaintiff is represented by government attorneys - local, state, or federal. In civil case, it is private attorney(s) hired by the plaintiff.

Criminal and civil actions, without legal precedents, rarely, if ever, see the inside of a courtroom.

If it is a federal criminal case, US attorneys have to file criminal actions under RICO. They will not take a plea to a judge without legal precedent to take it to judge, plus, rock solid testimony from the planitiff. Because the judge can dismiss it without hearing legal arguments to move it to a court.

The above is how it is supposed to work when ethics are being followed under the law. When dishonest judges hear arguments in a judge's chambers, regardless of legal precedents and/or rock solid testimony, those cases may never see the inside of any courtroom. Because when judges belong to political parties, they tend to lose any independence or objectivity in decided on cases and plea briefs. Such is the reality of life.

I scanned over the brief. That is a civil case being filed partially using RICO legal precedents and partially using US constitutional legal precedents. It is not a RICO case. A RICO case is always filed by the US Attorney General's office. That is not about to happen in the case of 9/11/2001 on Mr. Rodriguez's behalf. A civil case does not make Mr. Rodriguez's case any less credible or valid. To presume so, would be a false presumption.

Affidavits, from others supporting Mr. Rodriguez's complaint, are indeed available as evidenced at the website provided by another poster. At least some are support affidavits from qualified experts, which every plaintiff's law suit should contain. If the case gets to court, those people filing support affidavits, will most likely be called upon to testify as expert witnesses on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez's attorney is asking for a jury trial.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Mr Rodriguez's story has proved to be very flexible depending on who he's aligning himself with. To me, the original account is the least likely to be inaccurate or biassed for several reasons apart from later political inclinations and his more recent versions have wounded his credibility.

Just my observation.

In my opinion, Mr. Rodriguez has a highly substantial case. It should be interesting how it all turns out. Mr. Rodriguez is also filing suit detailing crimes again humanity, citing Nuremberg trial court precedents. It is a well written detailed plea brief full of pertinent legal precedents, and more than adequately supports Mr. Rodriguez's case.

I highly recommend reading that brief. It is quite interesting, informative reading. Without reading it, it would be most difficult to discuss, with any well informed correct view, exactly what that brief entails in 237 pages of legal plea brief.

WARNING THE LANGAUGE USED IN THIS VIDEO WILL PISS YOU OFF. IT IS AFTER A CLIP FROM PENN AND TELLER'S SHOW BULLS***.
BUT PLEASE TRY TO LOOK BEYOND THAT. AND NO I DON"T WHOLE HEARTLY AGREE WITH THEM.


Now. Here is a tame video from Perdue University showing the impact on one of the towers and exactly what happend as seen by a simulation.





[edit on 1-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by L driver
I can well understand why some would find that questionable. My specific question relates to Rodriguez's quotes. Given that there were 99 elevators in the North Tower, many of which were in shafts that reached to the basement levels,

Problem is if you look at the plans for the elevators, ony 1 freight elevator went from the upper floors all the way down to basement sub-level 6.

No passenger elevator want from the upper floors to the sub basement.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Now. Here is a tame video from Perdue University showing the impact on one of the towers and exactly what happend as seen by a simulation.

Yes, i like how the Purdue video shows the aluminum plane being shredded to pieces as soon as it hits the building.



[edit on 1-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by OrionStars


Thank you for the reply Orion. I have always told you I would "own up" if I was/am wrong.

I am. Aplogies for that and thank you for explaining your position in relation to the quoted legal pleading.

I should have said, and I didn't, a RICO like case, which is very different than an actual RICO case.

I stand more educated and corrected!

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Yes, i like how the Purdue video shows the aluminum plane being shredded to pieces as soon as it hits the building.

I really don't see where you get that.
It shows it more or less intact til at least a quarter of the way through the coe supports. .
Did you really watch it all the way through?






[edit on 1-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Thank you for the reply Orion. I have always told you I would "own up" if I was/am wrong.

I am. Aplogies for that and thank you for explaining your position in relation to the quoted legal pleading.

I greatly appreciate and respect your honesty. Thank you very much.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I really don't see where you get that.

No, it shows just pieces comming through the outter walls into the core.
Just some pieces hitting the core collumns.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Erm.
The side view.
It shows the fuselage of the plane largely intact going through the beginning of the core supports so hard it snaps them and keeps on going. From there on it becomes progressively more akin to a shotgun blast as the core supports break it up. Thusly the only parts coming out the backside
Watch it again please.



[edit on 1-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

The side view.
It shows the fuselage of the plane largely intact going through the beginning of the core supports so hard it snaps them and keeps on going. From there on it becomes progressively more akin to a shotgun blast as the core supports break it up. Thusly the only parts coming out the backside.

Well for 1 an aluminum airframe would not survive going through the steel outter walls.

You do know there is only 1 area of the airframe that is about as strong as the steel walls correct ?

www.tms.org...

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Three words that trump your statement.
At high velocities.
And you should remember how it can be hard to crush a aluminum can unless you wiggle and make the side crackle a little before it'll crush in.

I also imagine that the plane was built to be a little studier than a coke can, well ALOT sturdier than a coke can.
No commercial airplane builder wants the bad press of making shoddy airplanes. Nor does a Commercial Airline want the bad press of buying shoddy airplanes.
Not to mention I find it hard to believe that if a plane hits a building the plane will just disintegrate and cause minimal damage to the building.
Especially at high velocities.


So your calling the people at Perdue University fools or in-on-it?
Seems a rather, um, can't think of a good nice word to say it, statement.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I think the Purdue model is astounding. I think it is a very plausible and scientifically sound model.

You do know there is only 1 area of the airframe that is about as strong as the steel walls correct ?

Been over this as nauseum - there are many pieces of aircraft with
sufficent strength and mass. The keel beam (as you stated), wing
spars and ribs, landing gear, jet engines. These parts are made of
high strength alloys - heavy duty aluminium, titanium and steel.
When propelled at high speed (~ 550mph) will penetrate steel walls
and damage/sever columns. The columns were not solid steel, but
hollow box beams.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

But.
To get back to the subject at hand and to call you on your bluff.
Please note exhibit #1
Both are screen shots made by yours truly of the video I posted to this thread and you said you watched.


Here we see a largely intact fuselage few seconds upon entering and not breaking apart at impact as you allege the video shows. And it should also be noted it has started its losing but massively damaging to the core supports battle.

Now. Please note exhibit #2.

And here we see a largely intact tail section following behind the largely intact fuselage as the forward part of the fuselage is already beating its little path into the core supports and getting beat up worse and worse in the process but by no means NOT going down swinging.

Now. Tell me again you watched the video.
I am sorry if this seems ad hominem but you said you watched it and I find that statement ringing false. I honestly have nothing against you. But come on.

And I figured now I would offer a thought on the fires.
Heat rises. The steel of those supports are getting hotter and hotter.
And those of course radiate their heat mostly up.
Into a very good insulator known as concrete which does take some of the heat but deflects a good amount of it back to the steel supports in turn making them stay really hot and getting hotter and closer to plasticy stage of melting metal. Which of course reduces the strength of the structure to stay up, which after a little bit gravity takes over and does what it does enthusiasticly which is pull things down.
And remember we still have the highly enthusiastic burning of the fires creating even more head that follows the above progression.
Jet fuel once burning is after all highly enthusiastic in said process.


Please note I don't mean the above description as an insult to anyone it just amused me at typing this to use cutesy wording.

I am like that at times. I love to amuse myself.
I mean no offense.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by thedman
The keel beam (as you stated), wing
spars and ribs, landing gear, jet engines.

As well known by most people, about 80% of the aircraft is aluminum.

As stated the only part of the airframe as strong as the box collumns was the keel on the bottom of the airframe..

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I also imagine that the plane was built to be a little studier than a coke can, well ALOT sturdier than a coke can.

Not to mention I find it hard to believe that if a plane hits a building the plane will just disintegrate and cause minimal damage to the building.
Especially at high velocities.

I guess you have not seen an aluminum airframe being destroyed by just hitting small tress at a slow speed.

Also if you look at most aircraft accidents the wings get sheared off.

So what do you think would happen to the airframe hitting steel at high speed, its going to be shredded like in the very first part of the Purdue video shows.




[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I guess you have not seen an aluminum airframe being destroyed by just hitting small tress at a slow speed.

Velocity my friend velocity.
And I think what I was saying about a coke can plays somewhere in here too.

Also if you look at most aircraft accidents the wings get sheared off.

The wings didn't survive the initial impact intact. Engine parts did. As he said.
They punched through of course but in so doing, well, fell apart.

So what do you think would happen to the airframe hitting steel at high speed, its going to be shredded like in the very first part of the Purdue video.

See the photos I posted?
It did not get shredded til after causing massive damage to the core. And even then caused damage on its way out.

Now please answer my question.
Are you calling the folks at Perdue liars or fools?


[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Velocity my friend velocity.
And I think what I was saying about a coke can plays somewhere in here too.

The wings didn't survive the initial impact intact.

See the photos I posted?
It did not get shredded til after causing massive damage to the core. And even then caused damage on its way out.

1. Photo of aluminum airframe shredded by trees at pretty slow speed. At high speeds and hitting steel means more destruction to the airframe.

i114.photobucket.com...

2. Well at least you agreed the wings did not go through the outter walls.

3. Please post photos of the beginnig of the video showing the plane head on being shredded as it comes through the outter wall.



[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]