Please watch this short video - then examine the details below: (double click on the vid to watch in YouTube if you don't like the way it appears due to blog embed)
1. At Time=0:38 Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says "There is no hard evidence" of explosives used in the 911 building attacks. This exchange requires just a bit of explanation.
The gentleman from Utah We are Change might not have been exactly on the mark when he claimed to have delivered hard evidence to the Attorney General. But that doesn't matter.
What he gave to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is this peer reviewed study explicating the painstaking work done by scientists on the hard evidence. The hard evidence is dust samples - meeting chain-of-custody standards - collected that fateful day. This dust was analyzed and the report delivered to the AG and (linked in the previous sentence) is the result of the analysis of that dust.
So the AG is right - We are Change Utah did not deliver a handful of dust to the AG - they delivered the scientific results of the analysis of that dust. But that does not excuse him from reading the study and writing his reasoning for rejecting it.
You can watch a video describing "step-by-step" how one dust sample was collected - followed by details of the dust analysis on which the peer-reviewed scientific paper presented to the Attorney General is based*
2. Misprision of Treason - Definition:
" TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
Prev | Next
§ 2382. Misprision of treason
How Current is This?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."
THERE are others like Barney Frank who also know of the study and refuse to acknowledge it... click here for videos showing his use of Straw Man logical fallacy to shirk responsibility.
The definition above says "Whoever" regarding responsibility for action regarding misprision of treason - it seems to me that the AG would want to get to the bottom of such serious allegation.
At Time= 1:33 after Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff states that the evidence that has been presented to him is "bogus" - the We Are Change Utah representative asks "What's it called?" - the AG doesn't know. After sputtering about hearing or seeing something about the evidence - it is obvious to the viewer that the AG hadn't even bothered to read it. That is exactly the problem with our public officials. They don't read the bills they sign into law - and they don't look at evidence presented by a frustrated public that treason against the United States of America has been committed.
One would think that with such serious charges being leveled - an Attorney General would take the time to examine it - then move on. Why ignore something so serious allowing rumors to circulate?
3. This phenomenon illustrates what has been the most difficult mission of the 911 Truth movement - getting people to actually look at the evidence. AE911Truth on the left side of this blog, the link under the "moment of truth" clock left side - lots of information is available - if only they would look.
4. BUT - We have reached a point where it is no longer acceptable to claim something doesn't exist because you haven't looked for it. That goes for the Attorney General, Barney Frank and all officials who have been presented with this paper.
American citizens are petitioning their government and the government is unresponsive. The time has come for someone to actually be charged with misprision. Either the evidence is there or it is not - either it points to crimes or it doesn't - either our public servants will do their job or they won't. We are at a point where they must be held accountable for their dereliction of duty thereby inviting the next big lie.
--------------
*Dust Study Video
1. At Time=0:38 Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says "There is no hard evidence" of explosives used in the 911 building attacks. This exchange requires just a bit of explanation.
The gentleman from Utah We are Change might not have been exactly on the mark when he claimed to have delivered hard evidence to the Attorney General. But that doesn't matter.
What he gave to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is this peer reviewed study explicating the painstaking work done by scientists on the hard evidence. The hard evidence is dust samples - meeting chain-of-custody standards - collected that fateful day. This dust was analyzed and the report delivered to the AG and (linked in the previous sentence) is the result of the analysis of that dust.
So the AG is right - We are Change Utah did not deliver a handful of dust to the AG - they delivered the scientific results of the analysis of that dust. But that does not excuse him from reading the study and writing his reasoning for rejecting it.
You can watch a video describing "step-by-step" how one dust sample was collected - followed by details of the dust analysis on which the peer-reviewed scientific paper presented to the Attorney General is based*
2. Misprision of Treason - Definition:
" TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
Prev | Next
§ 2382. Misprision of treason
How Current is This?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."
THERE are others like Barney Frank who also know of the study and refuse to acknowledge it... click here for videos showing his use of Straw Man logical fallacy to shirk responsibility.
The definition above says "Whoever" regarding responsibility for action regarding misprision of treason - it seems to me that the AG would want to get to the bottom of such serious allegation.
At Time= 1:33 after Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff states that the evidence that has been presented to him is "bogus" - the We Are Change Utah representative asks "What's it called?" - the AG doesn't know. After sputtering about hearing or seeing something about the evidence - it is obvious to the viewer that the AG hadn't even bothered to read it. That is exactly the problem with our public officials. They don't read the bills they sign into law - and they don't look at evidence presented by a frustrated public that treason against the United States of America has been committed.
One would think that with such serious charges being leveled - an Attorney General would take the time to examine it - then move on. Why ignore something so serious allowing rumors to circulate?
3. This phenomenon illustrates what has been the most difficult mission of the 911 Truth movement - getting people to actually look at the evidence. AE911Truth on the left side of this blog, the link under the "moment of truth" clock left side - lots of information is available - if only they would look.
4. BUT - We have reached a point where it is no longer acceptable to claim something doesn't exist because you haven't looked for it. That goes for the Attorney General, Barney Frank and all officials who have been presented with this paper.
American citizens are petitioning their government and the government is unresponsive. The time has come for someone to actually be charged with misprision. Either the evidence is there or it is not - either it points to crimes or it doesn't - either our public servants will do their job or they won't. We are at a point where they must be held accountable for their dereliction of duty thereby inviting the next big lie.
--------------
*Dust Study Video
No comments:
Post a Comment