NYCCANT: It's Over

[Bolo Boffin]

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/09.10.09LehnerOrder.pdf

The judge issued his ruling on the 8th of October. Basically he said the Referee and the Clerk got it right. It's completely irredeemable.

PS: There's an interesting assertion over at JREF that NYCCAN actually consulted a reputable lawyer with their petition long before any of this happened, and the respectable lawyer told them flat out the problems with the petition and its certain fate.

And they ran around gathering signatures and money with it anyway.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[noise]

1. My sources tell me

that NYC-CAN lost motivation when Farmer's book was released.

Are you happy the NYC-CAN petition failed?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I am happy that a totally fucked-up moronic petition failed, yes.

I've said this a few times. I don't mind who knows it. You can quote me.

But be sure you quote me accurately. No paraphrasing allowed.

ETA: Lost motivation when Farmer's book came out? What are you on about? The petition was fatally flawed from the very beginning. Evidently they knew this from the very beginning, and they still ran around raising cash.

I'm glad that a bunch of charlatans and scam artists failed. If only they had failed before they bilked people out of their money...

[noise]

3. So your opposition

was to the means and not the ends (another investigation)? Or should we all be happy with Farmer's definitive account of 9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Dude, this thread is not about Farmer.

Indulge your obsession in another thread that is about Farmer. This is about the NYCCAN petition. Farmer's got nothing to do with that.

[travis80]

5. you didn't answer the first part Bolo

was your opposition that is was a petition to get a new 9/11 investigation? or was it because you think it was a flawed petition, regardless of what is was about?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Is your support of this effort simply a misguided attempt to answer your questions?

Or is your support of charlatans and frauds something else?

[HannibalCards]

7. The petition was flawed

Fatally so, and the leadership of NYCCAN ws told this by a lawyer they consulted AGES ago. Rather than fix what was wrong, They decided to move forward anyway - to get all the donations they could.

[travis80]

18. so you skeptic's objection had NOTHING to do with...

the petition asking for a new 9/11 investigation?

[noise]

19. You doubt their motives?

Wow. I can't help but believe the concern for those "scammed" by NYC-CAN is heartfelt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. huh?

You're asking whether people's objection to the petition had nothing to do with the petition?

[noise]

20. And you may be right

What about the goal--a new investigation? Is that a worthy goal? Or should the NYC-CAN folks go out and buy a John Farmer book and learn everything they ever wanted to know about 9/11?

[HannibalCards]

22. If they can provide

some evidence that a new investigation is warranted, then yes, the goal is worthy. To date, they (NYCCAN in particular and the 'truth movement' in general) have not provided such evidence.

[noise]

23. The "non conspiracy" crowd

has provided such evidence. Wright, Bamford, Lance, Sen. Graham, etc.

[HannibalCards]

24. They have provided speculation

Some of it based on faulty information from 'Truth Movement' websites and videos. I mean evidence; evidence that would hold up in a court of law. That's what we are talking about, here; an investigation leading towards a stated goal.

[noise]

25. The evidence would be gathered by the investigatory body

I realize NYC-CAN was flawed. It was an attempt to appoint some sort of independent investigatory body. I imagine the NYC-CAN committee would have been like the 9/11 Commission in that any call for prosecution would have to be presented to the DOJ or state attorney's office.

[HannibalCards]

26. The authors of the petition

knew it was flawed, too. They were advised by their attorney that it would not get on the ballot the way it was set up. They ignored the advice and kept raising donations. That gets really close to fraud.
The claimed 80,000 signatures are now worthless. They will have to all be scrapped, the petition rewritten and the crusade begun again. NYCCAN could have avoided this months ago by simply following the advice given, they might have actually succeeded.

... but then the donations would have stopped.

Yes, you are correct about the NYCCAN committee and their limitations. Part of the problem with the petition was they wanted to exceed those limitations. In addition, they would be working with the exact same evidence that the 9/11 commission worked with. What makes you think the result would be any different?

[noise]

27. One main reason

is because the commission presumably wouldn't be worried about bipartisan consensus. Instead the commission would be nonpartisan in a "let the chips fall where they may" sort of way.

[HannibalCards]

28. I don't know

The proposed commissioners listed on the petition seemed to be pretty biased to one side.

Ed Asner? Really?

[defendandprotect]

33. If they got an investigation, it would have to requre full authority to investigate . . .

I imagine that's some kind of a sticking point --

subpoena power -- access to records -- the whole thing --

this is a long way off yet. And, I think it's about keeping the issue

in the forefront and trying to gain more power for an investigation.

[travis80]

14. you still didn't answer Bolo. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Neither did you. n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noise]

13. NYC-CAN's petition calls for another investigation

Some critics of NYC-CAN object because they evidently believe another investigation is a waste of time. They evidently believe the 9/11 Commission effort was good enough.

Of course if you want to pretend your criticism is all about means and not ends then so be it.

[HannibalCards]

16. The petition as written

is unlawful - it grants the city powers outside of its jurisdiction. The authors were told this by their attorney, and they neglected to make changes.

[defendandprotect]

32. Could they have made changes? Do you know what was required?

[HannibalCards]

38. They could have made changes

the initial advice they got touched on several of these problems;

1) The petition overreaches jurisdiction and the proper scope of a local commission
2) It didn't establish a financing plan
3) The commissioners appointed in the petition conflicted with state laws concerning appointing or electing public officers
4) It appointed illegal prosecutorial powers on the commission
5) It set itself up as an amendment to a law or provision that didn't actually exist

[defendandprotect]

43. Looks like the main argument was its attempted scope and obviously

unless it is other than "local" and has appreciable power to investigate, especially
what the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate, then the investigation would be a
betrayal of NYC CAN intentions.

Hopefully this is only the beginning and that they will continue to increase and intensify
the push for a REAL new investigation.

[whatchamacallit]

8. At the end of the day one has to ask

why do you have a dog in this fight?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Oops, times up on getting personal.

Got any evidence?

[whatchamacallit]

10. I'm sure that response means something

to you :shrug:

[HannibalCards]

11. For me

It was watching an obvious scam (NYCCAN), and trying to alert people who might have otherwise donated to those crooks. Not unlike trying to talk sense to people who want to send their money to a TV preacher.

[defendandprotect]

31. You're saying that it's a "scam" that almost 50% of NYC thinks 9/11 was an inside job?

Or that the effort to try to rouse even more people to think about 9/11 with the

petition was a scam?

[KDLarsen]

36. If 50% of NYC thought it was inside jobby-job

Then why have NYCCAN had such a difficult time raising the necessary number of signatures? Keep in mind that we don't know for sure if they even got the required number in the first place, since the city realised the legal issues of the petition and didn't want to waste time counting.

[defendandprotect]

44. IMMEDIATELY upon 9/11 . . . at the moment it began... CNN banner pointed to suspicion . . .

that this was an "inside job" --

Later, polls have shown that 49% of NY'ers thought it an inside job.

Don't recall the numbers on all of NY state -- less, but still high.

And, of course, like any other awakening, as long as the info is out there -- and it is --
more will awaken.

Aluminum planes going thru steel like "butter" . . . hmmmm....

[HannibalCards]

39. I think it's a scam

that the authors knew the petition was set to fail, but continued to solicit donations.

[defendandprotect]

45. Well, didn't we just have petitions to overturn Prop 8 . . .?

and other similar efforts which have failed?

I think it would be impossible for them to "give" on the idea of a fully empowered
investigation and still support it.

Presumably that can only come as the organization grows - presumably nationally.

But, there has been suspicion from the first minutes of the 9/11 attack and I don't
think that's going away.

That "contributions/money" is involved can be a good lead to true corruption -
but of all the corruptions we've seen in the open these past years, I wouldn't single
this one out. Time will tell. If they come back next year, I'll be happy to contribute.

[HannibalCards]

48. The New York City Charter

is a public document that anyone can read. Why would NYCCAN put a provision in their petition stating that commissioners could live outside of NYC when the Charter specifically says they can't?
Answer; it was set up to fail and fleece the sheep.

[defendandprotect]

49. I guess we have to ask them . . . ?

Perhaps they didn't trust the Bloomberg administration to appoint commissioners?

Wasn't Bloomberg against this?

[HannibalCards]

52. Let me know what they tell you.

I don't believe I've heard Bloomberg make a statement either way.

[defendandprotect]

57. And I'm sure Bloomberg would be prepared to answer honestly . . . !!!

I didn't raise the question --

however, I did give you my opinion --

Bloomberg was against this.

[defendandprotect]

34. Yes, agree . . .

hmmm...

April Gallop's lawsuit is still out there --

Coincidentally, she didn't see a "plane" either and she was right in its path!!

I think they're right now cracking down on this hard.

Which suggests to me that the informal, citizens' driven investigations have succeeded

in uncovering a good deal of truth!!!

Amazing that there has been so much citizen activity -- in JFK, private investigators

led the way.

Jim Marrs did write something on this -- I think, in fact, he called it "Inside Job" !!

[KDLarsen]

37. April Gallop's lawsuit won't be going very far

She sued American Airlines and Argenbright Security a few years ago, for the physical and emtional damage she and her child suffered, when AA77 hit the Pentagon. Both companies chose to settle for an undisclosed amount.

ETA: At the same time as she sued Dick Cheney et al for faking the attack on the Pentagon, she was suing Riggs Bank for allegedly supplying funds to the terrorists that attacked the Pentagon :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

41. Of course, April Gallop can only play by the rules of the game-players . . .

if they want to pretend that a plane hit the Pentagon, then she'll go with that
to get assistance.

Following the money is also a good way to begin to expose who actually is responsible
for 9/11.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon was aware for more than an hour -- as was NORAD -- that a "hijacked"
plane was still flying on the loose and in the area --

According to Minetta testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Cheney was being warned from the point
that the "incoming" was 50 miles out.

All of this points to the "stand down" going on -- and that there were no ALARMS sounded at
the Pentagon to evacuate personnel.

If that reality doesn't hold sway today in the courts then it is only due to corruption of
the courts -- not unlike our entire DOJ politicized/corrupted by Bush.

In future, we'll see what happens as reality begins to take hold with citizens who constantly
replay 9/11 in their heads -- and "two planes cutting into WTC towers like butter."

[KDLarsen]

46. Nonsense

If she had the overwhelming evidence required to win an actual case against Dick Cheney et al, she could land one mother of a book deal which would financially secure her far greater than any compensation she may have recieved.

Instead she chose to compromise her own case, by first claiming one thing, then another and then claiming both things happened at the same time :eyes:

And NORAD had no idea what they were looking at, they were busy chasing flights that had already crashed.

[defendandprotect]

51. Minetta testimony is the evidence . . .

plus the record of previous and constant "alarms" and evacuations to keep Pentagon
personnel on their toes should there be an attack or other emergency.

Rather it is YOU who seem to be busy claiming that she said one thing -- and then
claiming she said another and then claiming both -- :eyes:

You might try referring to the various videos made by April Gallop where she is quite
clear -- including about the "suits" who visited her in hospital pressuring her to add
"PLANE" to her rendition. April Gallop saw "NO PLANE."

Well, see that's also the problem with NORAD beings so inexperienced -- not to mention
undermanned! We should make sure that we get a more efficient force -- and maybe even
a new Pentagon -- perhaps something from a more reliable country to protect us!!!

Oh, don't forget to order some new cameras for the Pentagon, as well-!







:evilgrin:

[KDLarsen]

54. As I said

If she believes Dick Cheney et al engineered a flyover + bombing of the Pentagon, why would she be suing Riggs Bank for providing funds to the 9/11 hijackers at the same time?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread424507/pg1 Is a fairly good summary of her litigations so far, including some of the relevant pages.

As for NORAD, I agree that they were inexperienced with this new form of terrorism, but undermanned? Not really.

Also, got a source for those "previous and constant" alarms at the Pentagon?

[defendandprotect]

55. NORAD's jet fighters were moved out under the pretense of the training missions . . .

Some to Alaska/Canada area in a simulation of an attack by Russia --

and some to N/S Carolina.

NORAD was AWOL --

Again, April Gallop has to play according to the games being played --

April Gallop is one of the sources for the constant "alarms" and evacuations at Pentagon.

As I would presume every other employee there were.

And again . . . April Gallop was in the pathway of the "plane" . . . she saw "NO PLANE" . .

and no plane debris.

Pentagon was experienced in guarding us against Russia and the China but stubbed their toe

on four simultaneously hijacked commercial jets alleged arranged by a guy in a cave?

One of the "hijacked" planes flying around in the area of Pentagon for more than an hour?

Minetta testimony to 9/11 Commission/video advising that Cheney was WARNED REPEATEDLY . . . ?

Pilots who couldn't fly doing acrobatic flying in commercial airliners they'd never flown

before and at impossible speeds which would have caused the airliner to shake apart?

Had anyone suggested that the Russians had done this, Americans would still be laughing!





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[KDLarsen]

58. We've been over this before

Defense cuts after the fall of the Soviet Union meant that only 14 fighters were assigned combat ready status, regardless of the number of excercises, training missions et al.

And again, if April Gallop was in the path of the plane and saw no plane, WHY DID SHE SUE DICK CHENEY ET AL?! It doesn't take a genius to realise, that claiming one thing in court and then claiming the opposite isn't going to look good.

"a guy in a cave", himself a trained engineer (though he never took a degree as he was too busy working for his company), surrounded by highly trained people, most of them with university degrees.

And are you making this stuff up as you go along? It took 46 minutes, at the most, from the time AA77 was hijacked and until Hani Hanjour, a pilot with a CPL which requires at least 190 hours of flying, slammed it into the Pentagon. So how the hell would it be able to stay "in the area of the Pentagon for more than an hour"?!

Minetta had his timings wrong, this has been proven repeatedly: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

[defendandprotect]

59. You're right . . .

which will make this the last time 'cause obviously you're not interested

in progressing in a debate --

Our defense budgets have only ever grown -- that is what we've seen of them . . .
much of the money has been hidden - for CIA, as well.

We were left with 14 jet fighters because of the phony training missions on 9/11 --
blocks of jet fighters were moved out to Alaska/Canada and to Carolinas.

Again, April Gallop sued Cheney for NOT warning Pentagon employees of INCOMING . . .
which Minetta has testified to. Should she have sued Boeing for not warning her?

"A guy in a cave" who we were supporting with government money right up to 9/11?
"A guy in a cave" with intimate relationship with the Bush Family?
This guy could do what neither the Russians nor the Chinese had been able to do?
Oh, I guess neither Russia nor China had engineers?

And, 46 minutes wasn't enough for NORAD to respond to defend DC and Pentagon?

Again . . .

As for mike@9/11 myths . . .

:evilgrin:


And you're now on "ignore" to avoid any further wasted time with you --

Bye --

[KDLarsen]

67. :D

You couldn't handle the truth, huh?

[SDuderstadt]

68. No, when D&P is repeatedly asked for evidence of his/her goofy claims....

(which doesn't remotely exist), you're routinely put on ignore. It's a blessing in disguise.

[KDLarsen]

69. True

A shame it's happened now. I've just recieved the bulk of my book order from Amazon, and was looking forward to quoting straight from The Looming Tower, Firefight, Touching History, The Ground Truth etc.

Oh well, at least it'll keep me busy while I read through them :)

[MrMickeysMom]

77. I suppose some people do that...

... because it's a lot easier to criticize NYCCAN's grassroots efforts than assist the victims who have been frustrated over time- easier to hide behind a keyboard than actually come up with AN EXAMPLE of a "unflawed" or model petition.

Gee, I wonder if anyone would rather do something like... leading by example.

[Kesha]

12. One Freeper once told me that...

...the term "Democracy" does not appear in the Constitution.

I checked it, he`s right.


Poor old USA.

[defendandprotect]

30. "All are created equal" -- "Equality for all" . . . is democracy . . .

"Separation of Church & State" = democracy

gives you your highest privilege . . . the right to free thought, free conscience,

free will.

As long as the GOP fascist pigs aren't in control!!!!

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

29. Maybe next time . . . this isn't going away . . . huge numbers everywhere . . .

And I think the petition drive helped to make even more people aware --

"Only fools never doubt" --
Shakespeare

[HannibalCards]

40. Huge numbers?

They held a big march on city hall (on a Sunday!) a few weeks ago. The huge number who finished the march? Seven.

I'm sure NYCCAN won't be going away. As long as they have someone they can fleece for donations, they have a cause. Mid summer next year, we'll start hearing about their fund raising drives.

Unless they are under prosecution for fraud.

[defendandprotect]

42. I would say HALF of NYC is a "huge" number . . .

And, many others Americans, of course, have also awakened to 9/11 as an "inside job."

And many more will be awakening --

NYC CAN was a good start -- hopefully every 9/11 they will intensify their efforts.
I'll be happy to contribute!

[HannibalCards]

47. Half of NYC

Did not support this petition.

[defendandprotect]

50. You mean they didn't sign the petition . . .

Reports immediately on 9/11 . . . as it was happening . . . banner on CNN
that many were suspicious.

Meanwhile POLLING has shown that something like 49% of New Yorkers do not believe
the OCT and want new investigation.

[HannibalCards]

53. No, I mean

they didn't support the petition. They didn't sign it, they didn't donate to it, they didn't join in the demonstrations NYCCAN held. They did nothing to support it.

[defendandprotect]

56. What's 49% of the population of NYC . . .??? Near 4 million people????

Again, the limitations of this are that they need subpoena power and a deep and

broad investigation. Not something that Bloomberg or right wing courts are about

to give them.

Let's see what happens next year --

[HannibalCards]

60. Next Year?

Well ...

http://www.nyccan.org/The_Turning_Point.php

"While the petition had its flaws, it was secure enough to be implemented if the City and the Supreme Court were so inclined. It took the petition and legal processes to realize that the current City administration will stop at nothing to keep 9/11 in the rear view mirror. Our best and current expert legal advice indicates that no petition of this kind, however framed, can ever be assured success in New York City. Hence, no more time, energy, or money will be spent on this court action or a new petition effort."

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Yeesh.

What a bunch of maroons.

It was NOT secure enough to be implemented. That's why it was rejected. Instead of telling the truth, which was they fucked up royally and had no chance ever of getting on the ballot because of their own mistakes, they spread the self-serving lie that it's TPTB standing in their way and they can never triumph.

Why are they wound-licking? Because it is bitter and because it is their wound.

[defendandprotect]

63. Right, Bolo . . . and aluminum planes defeat steel -- !!!

Just like sliding into a tub of warm butter -- !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HannibalCards]

64. Why are you trying to change the subject?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. That's just what defendandprotect does. n/t

[defendandprotect]

71. THAT is the subject . . .

[HannibalCards]

72. No, this thread

is about the failure of NYCCAN and its flawed petition.

[defendandprotect]

73. NYC CAN is about 9/11 . . . and that's the central question . . .

of one of the most important --

do aluminum planes glide thru steel structures?

do we care if NORAD was AWOL?

do we understand that kerosene burned off in first 10 minutes?

do we understand the basics of 9/11?

I've already addressed what I think of NYCCAN and where it is currently.

I think you have, as well --

If you want to get obsessed about something to do with 9/11 start watching

the film of aluminum planes slicing into the WTC towers as though "butter" --

[HannibalCards]

74. NYCCAN is not about 9/11

NYCCAN is about a group of frauds using a tragedy (it could have just as easily been New Orleans) to fleece money from the gullible.

[defendandprotect]

75. In YOUR opinion, NYCCAN is fraudulent . . . and you're riding that Merry-go-round . . .

thanks, but I'm not --

NYCCAN doesn't exist without 9/11 --

[HannibalCards]

76. In NYCCAN's own admission

they knew their petition was unlawful - but they continued to solicit donations.

Grifters and scam runners will find a way to get money from the gullible. If it hadn't been 9/11, these ghouls would have found another 'cause'.

ETA - from NYCCAN -

"Our best and current expert legal advice indicated that no petition of this kind, however framed, can ever be assured success in New York City"

No kidding?

[MrMickeysMom]

78. evidence?

I won't hold my breath waiting for this streak of brilliance, either :eyes:

[HannibalCards]

80. They admitted it.

The organizers of NYCCAN were told early on that the petition, as written, was unlawful and couldn't pass. Rather than make changes they continued on anyway, soliciting funds to line their pockets.

[defendandprotect]

62. Maybe a national petition next year . . . or the year after?

80,000 signatures wasn't that bad, of course --

I see they are blaming political winds in NYC right now --

[HannibalCards]

65. More like

26,000 questionable signatures. That's a moot point now, though. NYCCAN has thrown in the towel on new petitions. Naturally they cast the blame on anyone but themselves.
I'm sure they won't stop taking donations.

[defendandprotect]

70. The 9/11 Commission is a laughing stock . . . any citizen who comes to understand

that is going to look for ways to press for a new independent investigation --

If you agree with the OCT then, of course, you won't be looking for a new investigation.

NYC, needless to say, is somewhat more awakened presumably than other citizens.

That's now -- not necessarily where we'll be a year from now.

Or any other time in the future.

[MrMickeysMom]

79. Have you donated?

[HannibalCards]

81. To NYCCAN?

No.

[Ohio Joe]

35. NYCCAN got exactly what they wanted

They can now cry about being suppressed.