Peak Oil News and Message Boards

OK---Obama's actually done it.

obama-vetoes-9-11-bill

The veto will prevent the 911 families from suing the Saudis for their role in the 911 attacks.

ALSO, by not letting the 911 families go to court, Obama is making sure that no subpoena or discovery order from the court can used to legally investigate the entire 911 mess, include the actions of the US federal government. As long as this case does't go to court, the secret documents can all stay secret.


The 911 families are out of luck---Obama just vetoed their right to go to court

Obama is making sure that no subpoena or discovery order from the court can used to legally investigate the entire 911 mess, include the actions of the US federal government

Plant are you joining the Truthers? As in ascribing some complicity to the US.

onlooker wrote:

Obama is making sure that no subpoena or discovery order from the court can used to legally investigate the entire 911 mess, include the actions of the US federal government

Plant are you joining the Truthers? As in ascribing some complicity to the US.

I'm making two points here.

#1: I've said for years that the only way to settle all the controversies associated with 911 is to take this matter to court. Once an issue is in a court the judge can order "discovery" and allow subpoenas of relevant documents and information. When the judge rules, that is the official and legally binding result of the examination of the evidence. Thats how the US system works.

No, I'm not a truther and I don't think the US was complicit in this attack. Yes, there was a lack of communication between the CIA and the FBI about the hi-jackers, but that separation was required by law after Sen Church did his investigations of the CIA and then passed various reforms to limit the powers of the intelligence agencies.

However, we now know that elements in the Saudi government were actively aiding the hijackers. At the very least those Saudis who aided the hijackers should be subject to civil suits that make them pay damages. Whatever they did should be made public in a court of law, so reporters can report on it and everyone can learn the truth, whatever it is.

That can't happen as long as Obama is blocking the 911 families right to go to court and sue the Saudis.

#2 Why is it that People who actually are so-called truthers have fallen silent on this issue and aren't backing the 911 families? The so-called truthers aren't demanding that the Saudis be brought to justice. The so-called truthers aren't denouncing Obama for blocking the 911 families right to go to court. That just seems so bizarre to me. Don't the truthers care about getting to the truth any more? Don't they understand what is at stake in this matter? Its like the truthers are frozen in the year 2001 forever, and can't understand the significance of what is going on with this issue right now.

Cheers!

Well I for one support the right of 911 families to take anyone and everyone to court. Lets have full disclosure

pstarr wrote:....our Black Mandingo President

Please keep your racist slurs to yourself

pstarr wrote:... A group of closely related Mande languages including Bambara, Malinke, and Maninka, widely spoken in western Africa. Also called Mandekan. That is where ....our President resides. I know.

You are out of your little mind.

Here...maybe this will help you

How-to-Sober-up-from-Weed

Cheers!

Obama's veto to protect the Saudis is his worst grovel yet.

Fortunately the Congress stood up for the 911 victims and voted---almost unanimously---to override Obama's veto.

Pretty damning !
http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... rent-true/

How is that worse that so called Government "think tanks" spewing out Government canards? Question for Outcast.

onlooker wrote:How is that worse that so called Government "think tanks" spewing out Government canards? Question for Outcast.

Inherently, it's not.

Each claim (and each group, based on the body of their claims and their evidence) needs to be evaluated, based on what they produce.

In this example, given the track record of economic prognosticators forecasting short term market drops of about half, given the state of the US and global economy, I'm not impressed with validating this effort by calling it a "think tank".

...

And are the "canards" you speak of the ones who use evidence based on objective data to do things like measure inflation or GDP? Or are they forecasters who ignore much of the economic data on the ground to make some political point?

Because to me, there is a WORLD of difference between such groups.

If you bother to research you will see that many many revelations have come out by whisteblowers and such which refute the"purity" of the the data and communication being emitted by government and other official sources. In fact this is what fascinates me and motivates me, to find out where this is occurring and find out the "truth" about a plethora of subjects. Take as one example albeit an extreme one 911. It is a pretty damning case against the official explanation. Or how about something like the obfuscation by cigarette companies for many years about their product or Exxon Mobile. And look at the revelations of Snowden relative to clandestine monitoring by the NSA etc.
So, this is what certain think tanks and other institutional entities are sometimes emitting. They are emitting false and fraudent information or conclusions based on false data.

onlooker wrote:In fact this is what fascinates me and motivates me, to find out where this is occurring and find out the "truth" about a plethora of subjects. Take as one example albeit an extreme one 911. It is a pretty damning case against the official explanation.

Are you talking the 911 truther movement?

If that's damning against the physical evidence, I'm a house cat.

911 was a setup and Exxon Lies is basically all you need to know about where this whacko is coming from.
Why am I not surprised.

Truther. Now I know why onlooker got sucked in so easily by the ETP model.

onlooker wrote:Take as one example albeit an extreme one 911.

You really don't understand how to build a credible argument, do you? Probably the worst thing you could do to attack official statistics is link it to 911 tinfoil.

asg70 wrote:

onlooker wrote:Take as one example albeit an extreme one 911.

You really don't understand how to build a credible argument, do you? Probably the worst thing you could do to attack official statistics is link it to 911 tinfoil.

Actually what I am doing is separating those who are open minded from those who are not on this site. Just follow the clues and facts as opposed to the sanitized version of the facts.