Wenn man eine Niederlage in einen Erfolg umdeutet, trifft die Bezeichnung Lügner wohl zu - wenn du dir dieses Schild umhängen möchtest, bitteschön... :Dkurvenkrieger schrieb:Haltlose Unterstellung. Du mich auch
Blödsinn, er ist dazu verdonnert worden, seine Gebühren zu bezahlen und die Gerichtskosten zu übernehmen. Die angeblichen "Beweise" hat der Richter nicht zugelassen, da nicht relevant!Du kannst also keine Quelle vorlegen.
Unsere Truther lügen mal wieder wie gedruckt...
Die Vorstellung, eine öffentlich-rechtliche Organisation wie die BBC würde Terrorismus unterstützen, ist genauso absurd wie die These, der Verfassungsschutz in Deutschland könnte rechtsextreme Kreise führen und finanzieren.
Erinnert mich an den Fisch-ohne-Fahrrad-Vergleich.factor schrieb:Die Vorstellung, eine öffentlich-rechtliche Organisation wie die BBC würde Terrorismus unterstützen, ist genauso absurd wie die These, der Verfassungsschutz in Deutschland könnte rechtsextreme Kreise führen und finanzieren.
Nein. Wenn man etwas ins Gegenteil verkehrt bzw. umdeutet is das allenfalls illusorisch, bei Dir hingegen wirkt das durchaus adäquat und auch ein klein wenig erfrischend. :troll:
Was für ein Zitat? *confused*
Dann gehe ich mal davon aus das du dir dein Zitat zusammen gesponnen hast.
Na, das passt doch zu dir wie die Faust auf's Auge, allerdings ist das weniger erfrischend als vielmehr ermüdend!
Und nochmals, wo finde ich hierzu eine Quelle?
Unsere Truther lügen mal wieder wie gedruckt...
die jW berichtete doch darüber. Was willst du noch? Es macht das Verschwörungsgedöns nicht glaubhafter, wenn man sich darüber beschwert, daß es für die Masse längst kein Thema mehr ist, über das es sich zu berichten lohnt. Es ist schon eigenartig genug, daß dieser Hoax über 10 Jahre am köcheln gehalten wurde, aber irgendwie mußte die Zielgruppe für die diversen lustigen Bücher und DVDs wohl bei Laune gehalten werden.
*Trommelwirbel*Pauken und Trompeten*geeky schrieb:Hat Nanothermit-Harrit eigentlich inzwischen etwas daraus gelernt, daß sein Unsinn detailliert zerpflückt wurde, oder führt er sich noch immer auf wie der Dynamit-Harry von Egon Olsen? Damit hat er vor Gericht sicher keine Chance. Aber darauf kommt es ja auch gar nicht an, wichtig sind nur die zurechtgelogenen Headlines in den Truther-Blogs, daß da irgendeine Lawine ins rollen kommt o.ä.
1. As Commander in Chief of the U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE), Eberhart was responsible for setting Infocon levels.[18] Infocon is an alert system that defends against attacks on communications networks within the Department of Defense (DOD). Just 12 hours before the 9/11 attacks, an order was given to lower Infocon to its least protective level.[19] Setting Infocon at a lower level made it easier for people to hack or compromise the DOD computer networks, including the air defense system.[20]
2. As both CINCSPACE and Commander in Chief of NORAD (CINCNORAD), Eberhart was in charge of many of the highly coincidental military exercises (i.e. war games) that were going on that morning.
3. Eberhart did nothing effective in response to the 9/11 hijackings, despite being present in the military’s teleconference as those hijackings were in progress. He did not order the scrambling of jets, he did not order an escort for Air Force One, and he did not provide leadership.
4. Eberhart also failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace until well after the attacks were over. Although it was his prerogative to do so, Eberhart did not implement SCATANA, the process of assuming military control over the U.S. airspace, until two hours after the second plane hit the WTC and one hour after the last plane had been destroyed. Eberhart later said that he had waited until it finally became “obvious” to him that a coordinated terrorist attack was underway.[21] He told the 9/11 Commission that, although people were telling him to take control of the airspace earlier, he didn’t feel that the military could “provide traffic deconfliction like the FAA has.”[22]
5. In the middle of the 9/11 attacks, Eberhart decided to drive between Peterson Air Force Base and NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC). Normally this 12-mile drive takes 30 minutes, but it took Eberhart between 45 minutes and an hour to make the drive that morning. No reason was ever given (or requested) for why Eberhart did not fly directly to CMOC from Peterson, making use of the Cheyenne Mountain helicopter port. Eberhart made conflicting statements about his reasons for making this trip, saying that he stayed for a while at Peterson because he “did not want to lose communication.”[23] Nevertheless, Eberhart lost communication at the most important time by leaving at approximately 9:30 am (EST), when two of the hijacked planes were still flying wildly off-course. His reason for doing this was that things had “quieted down.”[24]
6. While on his way to the CMOC he was in the U.S. military’s air threat call via cell phone. In this call, at 9:49 am, Eberhart “directed all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed.”[25] Although this might sound like decisive action, the command apparently grounded all interceptor jets that had not yet taken off due to the fact that “battle stations” is a grounded status. Other military leaders later gave orders to actually scramble the jets. And despite his involvement, Eberhart portrayed himself as being out of the loop entirely. For example, he told the 9/11 Commission that he had “no knowledge of the circumstances that initiated the scramble” of fighter jets from Langley AFB and that he had just “recently” been made aware that it happened (in March 2004).[26]
7. Eberhart failed to explain the multiple changes in the account of 9/11 that were given by NORAD. In fact, he seemed to tell his staff to change the NORAD timeline as much as was needed in order to prevent further questioning about the military’s performance.[27]
8. For whatever reasons, Eberhart also gave out false information about the NORAD response to others. General Richard Myers, acting CJCS that morning, said that Eberhart told him there were “several hijack codes in the system.” Yet none of the four planes had squawked the hijack code on 9/11 and therefore it is not clear how such codes could have been in the system.[28]
9. NORAD failed to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission. Even as late as March 2004, the Commission was struggling to get basic documents about 9/11 performance from Eberhart’s organization.[29] In some cases, such as with the after-action reports that follow all military actions, the Commission never received the NORAD documents.
9/11 WTC1 & WTC2 (Seite 2) (Beitrag von kurvenkrieger)
Was nutzt das, wenn du dann in 4 Jahren wieder vergessen hast, daß du ihn überhaupt kennst?
-Tony Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in SussexQuelle: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
-Told inspector on visit in May 2012 that he would not be paying licence fee
-Rooke said he was withholding fee under Section 15 of Terrorism Act 2000
-This states it's an offence for someone to provide funds used for terrorism
-He said he didn't want to give money to an organisation 'funding terrorism'
-Rooke said BBC claimed World Trade Centre 7 fell 20 minutes before it did
-But judge made Rooke pay £200 costs and gave him conditional discharge
He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.Argumentum ad Youtube? Woher kennt man das :D
District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: 'This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.'Wenn man das Gesamtzitat beachtet, hat also der Richter nur gesagt, dass die ganze Terrorsache für den Tatbestand irrelevant ist, der örtliche Magistrate Court (ca. Amtsgericht) gar keine Befugnisse hat, irgendwen des Terrorismus zu überführen, und dass er sich deshalb um diese Argumentation nicht kümmern kann und sie deshalb nicht zulässt.
He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.
He said: 'Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.'
Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: 'Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.
'I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.'
