Very superstitious, ladders bout’ to fall
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin’ glass
Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past

When you believe in things that you don’t understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain’t the way

Very superstitious, wash your face and hands
Rid me of the problem, do all that you can
Keep me in a daydream, keep me goin’ strong
You don’t wanna save me, sad is my song

When you believe in things that you don’t understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain’t the way, yeh, yeh

Very superstitious, nothin’ more to say

Very superstitious, the devil’s on his way
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin’ glass
Seven years of bad luck, good things in your past

When you believe in things that you don’t understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain’t the way, no, no, no

Please support your local 9/11 Truth group.

The trick now is to get our signatories active. Wish us luck!

Please check out the original post.

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a ‘conspiracy’ is an agreement or a kind of ‘partnership’ in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the ‘overt acts’ that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An ‘overt act’ is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of ‘partnership in criminal purposes,’ and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of ‘conspiracy’ itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of ‘conspiracy’ the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and (4) That such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as ‘a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.’

The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.

To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.

By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.

By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.

Johan Galtung

Prof. Johan Vincent Galtung (f. 24.10.30) is a social scientist, originally educated as a sociologist and mathematician, he is considered as the father of modern peace and conflict research.

Saturday October 10th he was interview about the terroralert the U.S. State Dept. issued for Europe Sunday October 3rd. One part on Galtung’s analysis was about American professional liers in which he, amongst other things, said the following:

“…we know that they have lied about weapons in Iraq and they have lied with regard to 9/11 coming from Afghanistan.“

 
Complete interview:

Reporter: “You are listening to ‘The World on Saturday’ – we are approching 11:25 A.M. Later in the broadcast we will open The Correspondence (regular segment) – this time from india.
But first: American authorities has in fact advised people not to travel in several European countries due to the terror-threat-level this week. It is important to the U.S. to reduce the euro’s significance and therefore they want to hit the europeans economically. So says professor Johan Galtung. He says he does not trust the terror threat, but that it also should be taken seriously.“

Galtung: “It’s the way they do it… keeping watch… It might not be necessary to go up in the Eiffel Tower. There is apparently a few places that are more at risk than others. On the other hand we know that they have lied about weapons in Iraq and they have lied with regard to 9/11 coming from Afghanistan. All in all like professional liers who at the same time are very committed to reducing Europe’s stature in the world, since they themselves are going down.“

Reporter: -

Galtung: “We see a duality in all of this. I believe it important for the U.S. to try to reduce the euro’s significance. In the mean time the euro is now approching 1.40 after having been as low as 1.19. It is important for them to try accomplish some sort of hardship in european countries. Greece would be an example of this. I note that Goldman Sachs were their advisors. Goldman Sachs was also Obama’s main money supply during the election. In other words, you can of course think something is up. And to reduce tourism in Europe would be an economic blow in addition to that. If you put all this together I have to say I sense strange motives and motives that are not good in any way, at the same time it is clear that one should take it seriously.“

Reporter:“Do you think this could have an impct on the relationship between Europe and the U.S.?“

Galtung: “It is clear that if this is exposed as lies it will have an impact, but on the other hand you have the loyal people the U.S. has at the top of the NATO-countries, like Norway for instance, who has great reluctance to making such accusations.“

Reporter: “Is there new developments in the background here, when we hear tavel-tips that apply to many countries in Europe?“

Galtung: “If you in fact have somewhere between 44 and 48 countries that participate in killing Afghans in Afghanistan, no matter what they choose to call this expedition… Then it is not completely unexpected or unnatural that there will be blows in return. You kick someone – it is normally returned. Many of these countries are in Europe and I will assume there is some level of probability that there something correct in it.“

Reporter: “Some say that the terror-alert coming now, that it is connected to increased military attacks in Pakistan. What are your thoughts on that?“

Galtung: “I think that is correct and that one has by that activatet a country that politically has a way easier time operating than does Afghanistan. Listen, Afghanistan is a moutnain-country with 20 000 villages. Pakistan is a very much more modern country that is very much more a part of the world at large and it is clear that if you start killing with drones in various places in Pakistan against the overwhelming majority of the population that does not either support the Taliban, then it is clear that there will be consequences. You mobilize people what will have any easier time acting around the world, then would mountain-folk in Afghanistan.“

To learn more about Galtung’s thoughts about this we contacted him to ask for an interview:

11.10.2010 kl.19:15

Subject: Follow-up interview

Dear prof. Galtung,

It feels somewhat strange to write to you in English since we are both Norwegians, but I really wanted to go by the proper channels.

I represent a newly founded Norwegian special interest group with a strict focus on the need for a new investigation of 9/11, Opprop for 9/11 Truth. It is a petition with full organizational support which we launched on 9/11 2010. As of now it counts 80 citizens of Norway.

During your interview on the NRK P2 – ‘Verden på lørdag’-show on oct. 9th you said that the U.S. had lied about 9/11 with regard to Afghanistan. We could not agree more and the statement itself was big news for us so we posted it on our website (http://opprop911.no/?p=1520). Thank you for speaking the truth on a matter rarely spoken of at all in main stream media.

It is not every day a scholar of your magnitude talks about the lies surrounding 9/11 and we are immensely curious to learn more about your thoughts on the subject. Therefore we would very much like to interview you about this subject-matter.

Please note that any kind of interview is more than what we dare hope for, though video would be optimal. Our current location is Oslo, but we are willing to travel what our very limited means allow us if necessary.

Cordially,

Erik Kamfjord,
Chairman and editor,
Opprop for 9/11 Truth

The email was sent successfully according to TRANSCEND’s webpage :

We apologize for the poor sound quality and hope that the relationship between our the public NRK and user-hostile, foreign, profit-driven Microsoft will be phased out to accomodate an open solution reflecting the national broadcasters democratic mandate.

12.10.10:

It is a great pleasure to inform you that we have already received a reply from Galtung and it seems we might get an interview with him. We will return to this at a later date.

Opprop for 9/11 Truth

is now publicly accessible. It is a Norwegian 9/11 petition with full organizational support that I am greatly looking forward to continue developing.

In this regard I want to extend a special thanks to my persistent, patient and talented friend, mucisian, teacher, painter and webdesigner Richard Nygård without whom the project could never have been realized.

If you have friends or family in Norway, please consider sending them a link or just our URL http://opprop911.no. Thank you.

To my great surprise I was called (and subsequently texted) on Wednesday by a girl at the Norwegian State Radio asking me if I would like to give a quick interview about 9/11 during a show about “conspiracy theories” later that evening. After asking my colleagues and being encouraged to participate, I accepted.

Click image below for the interveiw with English subtitles and let me know what you think.

Transcript:

A.A.: Erik, you are 28 years old and among a number of people who thinks the truth about 9/11 has not been disclosed. What has not yet been revealed?

E.K.: There is loads of information that in the least, has not been successfully communicated to most people on many levels, even though a lot of information is available in this regard. I would like to say that I don’t have any interest in conspiracy theories as such, which is the theme of today’s show, but I would gladly talk with you a little bit about 9/11, frankly because it is my impression that most Norwegians are very poorly informed about, lets say the story about how Norway became a war-nation six years ago… and I see a new investigation of 9/11 as the first step toward disassembling what I feel is a very unjust war.

A.A.: Mhm – but what has not been sufficiently informed about?

E.K.: Yes well, as mentioned, when two planes manage to bring down three skyscrapers, it would have been nice if this third skyscraper which was not hit by a plane was, for instance, shown on television so that people could observe what is happening and form an informed opinion for themselves.

A.A.: But who is behind- …or Who is the reason this has not been communicated in a good way?

E.K.: I don’t know. The press hasn’t exactly impressed all aspects of the 9/11 Truth movement, but of course Juntafil now is my new favorite radio show.

A.A.: Hehehe. Yes!

E.K.: So why the press has failed with regards to this issue- …that you all really need to find out for yourselves, but you are a very honourable exception from this sad rule so absolutely, there are bright spots, and NRK aired a segment on Schrödinger’s Cat not long ago, where they interviewed a Danish professor at the University of Copenhagen and that was a more or less upright affair, so we’re getting there and there is only one way this process of informing the public is going in this regard, but we would have saved a great number of lives in other parts of the world if this process could go a little faster… One example of how this process is moving forward is that we now have more than 900 certified architects and engineers backing us, who are very clear about there being obvious problems concerning both towers and how they disappear and concerning how this third skyscraper, World Trade Center 7 – building number 7, how it collapses.

A.A.: Erik, when you find out more I want you to get in touch with us-

E.K.: I know loads more. You can have 20 more seconds of me, completely free of charge.

A.A.: I think I’m declining your offer because I have an incredible urge to hear a very ‘New York’-oriented tune. So…

E.K.: Yeah well, ok.

A.A.: But dear Lord, Erik thank you very much for the chat for now.

E.K.: Sure. Thanks for having me.

A.A.: Yeah, no problem. Anyway, here’s Jay-Z and Alicia Keyes, my new favorite tune, the tune is called Empire State of Mind. This is Juntafil on NRK P3.

Twenty-four people were arrested yesterday when groups of diehard youths refused to disperse when police used pepper spray and fired bean bag rounds to break up a demonstration of around 1000 protesters.

A further 42 people were arrested when protests erupted in Schenley Plaza near the University of Pittsburgh in the evening, the FBI said in a statement today.

Read more at The Herald Sun.

Please visit the Pittsburg Police online, or preferably in real life…

1203 Western Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15233

…and request the names of the arrested youths. If the information is not made public soon you may report the crime using their elegant tip form.

If you believe someone you care for might be in custody you can call the Pittsburg Police at 412-323-7800.

If you are arrested or witness an arrest please dial: 412-444-3553.
During the actions, to report surveillance, harassment, brutality or any other incidents please contact the ACLU at 412-562-5015. With any other inquires please e-mail legal@resistg20.org